IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 592 of 2025 Decided on: 09.10.2025 ____________________________________________________ Renu Arora through her GPA Manish Arora ……….. Petitioner Versus Durga Singh and another ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Gautam Sood, learned Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral) The petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The petitioner has preferred a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the present respondents from erecting, constructing any illegal unauthorized structure over the vacant land comprised in Khasra No. 58 and also restraining the respondents from causing any sort of interference with respect to the easementary rights of the petitioner in the form of light, air by way of unauthorized construction, which rights are being enjoyed by the petitioner in the first floor of the building known as Inder Palace Building, built upon Khasra 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No. 58, Up Mohal Sanjauli Bazaar, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. 2. In the suit so filed, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC had been filed by the present petitioner. The said application so filed was dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Hence the present petition. 3. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the petitioner had purchased a flat in the first floor of the building identified as Inder Palace building, built upon Khasra No. 58, Up Mohal Sanjauli Bazaar, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. The structure being raised by the respondents is being raised on Khasra No. 56. Khasra No. 56 is classified as ‘Jay Safed’. The petitioner has no right with respect to Khasra No. 56. The structure being raised on Khasra No. 56 by the respondents is on the set-back of the building in Khasra No. 56. Both the Courts have taken the view that the construction being raised is in consonance with the notification dated 04.12.2020, whereby a temporary parking platform can be raised on 50% frontage of set-back for an open to sky parking. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any construction is being raised on Khasra No. 58 owned by the 3 petitioner. The petitioner is not a co-owner in Khasra No. 56 and has no locus to complain with respect to construction being raised thereupon. 4. One Sushma Chauhan from whom the petitioner had purchased the flat in question on Khasra No. 58 had filed a civil suit against the respondents. In the same, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC had been filed for impleadment by the present petitioner, however, the said fact has not been disclosed in the present proceedings. 5. Both the Courts after applying the correct parameters, i.e., prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any interim relief in the case at hand. 6. Suffice it to state that an appeal preferred against an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC is an appeal of principle. The grounds for interference in the same by the First Appellate Court have been dealt with in the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Wander Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., decided on 26.04.1990, the relevant extract is reproduced as under:- 4 “…...14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reasses the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reasonably possible on the material. The appellate Court would normally not with justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate Court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial Court’s exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadker, J.in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. Vs. Pothan Joseph. (SCR 721). ….These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton ‘…. the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case.” 7. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Supervisory jurisdiction, is available keep the tribunals and courts 5 subordinate to it, “within the bounds of their authority”. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 8. Supervisory jurisdiction, is not available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 9. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when supervisory jurisdiction is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High 6 Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice. 10. The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 11. This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. An improper and a frequent exercise of 7 this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. 12. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge October 9th, 2025 Susheel