IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.139 of 2025 Decided on: 19.09.2025 Chande Ram ….Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Nitin Soni, Advocate. For the respondents: Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge( oral ) The petitioner herein has assailed order dated 17th July, 2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu, H.P. in Civil Suit No.543-1/2024. 2. The grievance raised by way of instant petition is that the injunction order could not have been granted by learned trial Court without proper institution of suit and such institution in the facts of the case could not have been without passing appropriate orders on an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 3. The impugned order reveals that the injunction order in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 2 of the Code had been passed by learned trial Court on 6th December, 2024 and the application was accordingly disposed of. On 17th July, 2025, learned trial Court in the aforesaid background, where the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code had already been allowed, passed the order allowing the application under Section 80(2) of the Code and permitted the plaintiff to institute a suit without giving notice under Section 80(2) of the Code. 3. Though, technically the application under Section 80(2) of the Code should have been taken up for adjudication in the first instance, however, since the interim order had already been passed on 6th December, 2024 by disposing of application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of the plaintiff and the said order having remained unchallenged, the petitioner herein cannot have any possible grievance at this stage, by raising a technical objection. No illegality or perversity has otherwise been shown in the impugned order whereby application under Section 80(2) of the Code has been allowed. 3 4. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with impugned order, more particularly, when no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner herein. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge September 19, 2025 (vt)