IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 472 of 2025 Reserved on 19.05.2026 Decided on 29.05.2026 Manoj Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus M/s Curehealth Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr. Anil Kumar Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________ Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition arises out of the order dated 01.07.2025, as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan, HP whereby an application filed by the present petitioners under Order 39 Rule 10 C.P.C read with Section 151 C.P.C has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act for ejectment and possession and for recovery of mesne profit against the respondents. It is case of the plaintiffs/petitioners that they are owners in possession of the land and building constructed over Khewat Number/ Khatauni No. 4, min/4 Khasra No.193/111/88/1, measuring 01-10 bigha, situated in Mauja Raipur, Tehsil & District solan. The plaintiffs acquired the ownership alongwith built up area 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- on 07.01.2019 and the building was rented out to the respondents vide agreement dated 11.09.2015 by the predecessor of plaintiffs/petitioners. It has been averred that commercial activities for manufacturing and sale of pharmaceutical products are being carried out by the respondents/defendants. Since the respondents failed to pay the rent of the building to the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 11.09.2015, the petitioners issued a legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 27.03.2019 upon the respondents, whereby the tenancy of respondent No.1 was determined and terminated and the respondents were asked to vacate the premises in question on or before 30.04.2019 as per the legal notice. However, they failed to handover the vacant possession to the petitioners. As such, the defendants are liable to pay mesne profits and other charges to the petitioners/plaintiffs. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C against the present respondents. It has been stated in the application that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land and building constructed thereupon comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 4min/4, Khasra Number 193/111/88/1, measuring 01-10 bigha, situated in Mauja Raipur, Tehsil and District Solan, HP. It has further been averred that aforesaid building has been rented out to the respondents vide agreement dated 11.09.2015, wherein the factory unit has been established and the respondents are running the factory for the -3- manufacturing and sale of pharmaceuticals products. It has been stated that as per the agreement dated 11.09.2015, the monthly rent of the building is Rs.3,07,800/-. It has been stated that the respondent No. 2 to 4 had acquired the ownership of respondent No. 1 company w.e.f. 08.08.2018 as a shareholder and directors. It is the case of the petitioners that from the day of acquiring of the ownership of the company, respondent No. 2 to 4 on behalf of respondent No. 1 have miserably failed to pay the monthly rent of the building to the plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest. It has further been averred that the legal notice was issued under section 106 of TPA dated 27.03.2019 upon the respondents, whereby the tenancy of the respondents were terminated w.e.f. 30.04.2019 and the respondents were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented premises on or before 30.04.2019.It has further been averred that the defendants failed to comply with the notice and hand over the possession of the rented premises to the plaintiffs and, as such, their possession after 30.04.2019 in the rented premises is unauthorized, illegal and unlawful and respondents are liable to pay mense profit @Rs. 15,000/- per day to the plaintiffs. 4. It has been further averred that respondents have failed to pay the monthly rent as agreed and admitted between the parties vide agreement dated 11.09.2015 w.e.f. 07.01.2019 to 30.04.2019, which comes to Rs. 11,59,380/- The plaintiffs claimed the mesne profit @ Rs.15,000/- per day w.e.f. 30.04.2019 for the unauthorized possession of the rented premises. It has been -4- averred that calculated use and occupation charges at the minimum side comes to the tune of Rs. 1,62,41,580/-. It has been prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to furnish bank guarantee and surety so as to secure the payment of mesne profit at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per day. 5. The application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was contested by the defendants/respondents, wherein preliminary objections with respect to relationship of tenant /landlord, locus standi, estoppel etc. were taken. It was averred in the reply that the petitioners have suppressed material facts that the suit titled as M/s Cure Health versus Om Parkash and other is also pending in the Civil Court, in which plaintiff is also non-applicant/respondent No.3 . It has further been averred that in the said suit decree for declaration has been prayed that the document alleged as cancellation deed No. 2582/2018, dated 03.12.2018, being signed and executed upon the strength of document by an unauthorized person namely Akash, who has never been authorized by the respondent company, who executed the alleged document of cancellation of lease deed, is vague, false and not binding upon the rights of the defendants. 6. As per defendants it has been averred in connected suit that mutation effected on the strength of cancellation of lease deed vide mutation No. 459, be cancelled and further exchange deed executed on the strength of the cancellation of lease deed in -5- favour of the plaintiffs is also wrong, illegal, unlawful and not binging upon the rights of the defendants. It has been averred that Om Prakash was the owner of the land in question. It has been averred that said om Prakash leased out the aforesaid sheds to defendant No.1 company for the period of 10 years on monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/- through lease deed no. 2144/2013 dated 11.11.2013 duly attested with office of Registrar qua which the mutation has already been attested and sanctioned in the revenue record. 7. As per respondents in the year 2017, respondent No.1 and Om Prakash mutually agreed to extend the aforesaid lease deed No.761/2017 dated 24.04.2017 and after the year 2014, the respondent No.1 company after obtaining loan from the bank constructed three story building by dismantling the three sheds and by constructing three story building out their own funds which is duly authorized by the lessee which fact finds mentioned in the lease deed, which was executed in the year 2017. It has been averred that under the garb of the exchange deed, the plaintiff in connivance with Om Prakash is threatening to dispossess the defendants from the lease property and pressuring the defendants to vacate the lease property in a wrong and illegal manner. It has been averred that the suit as filed by the defendants is pending adjudication before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan , District Solan, H.P. and the said suit was filed prior to the filing of the present suit. It has further been stated that the -6- said suit is between all the relevant parties wherein the cancellation of lease deed and exchange deed in favour of the present plaintiffs are already under challenge. Therefore, it was prayed that the present instant suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed under Section 10 C.P.C. All the averments as made in the application were denied and refuted. It was specifically stated that the alleged exchange deed is illegal in the eyes of law and the defendants were never associated and taken into confidence while entering into the alleged exchange deed. It was denied that the defendants are in unauthorized, illegal and unlawful possession over the suit property and it was averred that that the defendants have legal and lawful possession on the basis of registered lease deed, which was executed before the Sub Registrar. Therefore, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiffs. 8. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the defendants. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan, dismissed the application vide its order dated 01.07.2025. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by assailing the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan, H.P. It is contended by Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate that impugned order is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set-aside. He would submit that the Court below has rejected the application without taking into consideration the material facts. It is contended -7- that after accepting the present petition, the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C may be allowed. 10. On the other hand , Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate has defended the impugned order as passed by the leaned trial Court. He submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the order and no interference of any kind is required in the same. He further submits that while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not interfere in a well- reasoned order as passed by the learned trial Court. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case file carefully. 12. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed the suit for ejectment, possession and for recovery of mesne profits and mandatory injunction, which is pending before the learned trial Court. Admittedly, the defendants have refuted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is the case of the respondents that in the absence of any relationship of landlrod and tenant, the application which was filed under Order 39 Rule 10 C.P.C deserves to be rejected . 11. The provisions of Order 39 Rule 10 C.P.C reads as under: “10. Deposit of money, etc., in Court.—Where the subject-matter of a suit is money or some other thing capable of delivery and any party thereto admits that he holds such money or other -8- thing as a trustee for another party, or that it be- longs or is due to another party, the Court may or- der the same to be deposited in Court or delivered to such last-named party, with or without security, subject to the further direction of the Court." 13. The learned trial Court after perusing the case file came to the conclusion that the title of the property is under dispute and the defendants have put a cloud on the title of the plaintiff, therefore, in the absence of the same, the application could not be allowed till the time the parties lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. Basically, the prayer which has been sought in the main suit has been made in the application which has been filed under Order 39 Rule 10 C.P.C. The learned trial Court could not have granted the relief to the plaintiffs/petitioners till the time the rights of the parties are determined in full fledge trial. In case the application of the petitioners is allowed, in that event, it will virtually amount to decreeing of the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The respondents/defendants are challenging the status of the plaintiffs and they have specifically denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Since the title of the suit property is yet to be proved and the suit is at the initial stage, therefore, the Court can come to any conclusion only after conclusion of trial. The parties have to lead their evidence in support of their rival contentions and only then the Court can come to the conclusion whether the relief as sought can be granted or not. In case, the prayer of the petitioners is accepted in that event, it will virtually -9- affect the merits of the case which is not permissible in a Civil suit. The plaintiffs are at liberty to prove its case by leading oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. However, till the time the right, title and interest of the parties are determined, this court is of the considered opinion that the relief that too in an applica- tion under Order 39 Rule 10 C.P.C cannot be granted to the present petitioners. 14. The learned Court below has passed a well reasoned order and there is no error in the same. The findings as returned by the Court below are legal, valid and sustainable, therefore, no interference is required in the present proceedings. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the exposition of law with respect to the scope of interference of the High Court while entertaining petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. The Apex Court in SHRI DIGANT vs. M/s P.D.T Trad- ing Co. & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.13801 of 2025 has held that the scope of High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 fell for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. This Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of cer- tiorari under Article 226, though they may be questioned in the su- pervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only inappropriate cases for the purpose of keeping -10- the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their au- thority and not for correcting mere errors. It has been held that the power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when(i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a ju- risdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of juris- diction. 17. Therefore, the Apex Court has laid down the parame- ters with respect to the scope of High Court’s power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India well entertaining the chal- lenge to civil Court order passed in a suit or proceedings. The Apex Court has held as follows. 22. It is now time and again observed that, by mak- ing evasive statements and blaming earlier advocates parties continue with the litigation before the same fo- rum or the appellate forum. Sometimes, they go on with one step further by blaming with the Trial Court or appellate Court to protract the litigation. But, in present case the evasiveness on the part of the appel- lants / defendants is continue even at the stage of fil- ing appeal memo or during the course of final argu- ments. The roznama of this case would demonstrate that, sufficient opportunity was granted from time and again to the appellants to make the statement about -11- notice dated 20/11/2014. So, on this count also, the ra- tio laid down in this case law is not applicable to the facts of our case.” 18. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Garments Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181 has held High Court High Court while exercising supervi- sory jurisdiction under Art. 227 does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based- It is held that the Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported- High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal- Jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correc- tional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or fla- grant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or jus- tice- Power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appro- priate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that court or tribunal has come to- The Hon’ble Court has held as under: “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exer- -12- cised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Consti- tution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory ju- risdiction under Art. 227 does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based- Su- pervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when final finding is justified or can be supported- High Court is not to substitute its own de- cision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal- Jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental prin- ciples of law or justice- Power under Article 227 is exer- cised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that court or tribunal has come to- It is ax- iomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction un- der d.2 Article 227 of, this Court in Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate(P) Ltd. Has observed: “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the -13- bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 19. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2003) 3 SCC 524, has held as under: “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power un- der Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed un- -14- der Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 20. To the similar effect , Hon’ble Apex Court in Sugarbai M. Siddiq and others vs. Ramesh S. Hankare (2001) 8 SCC 477, has held as under: “6. There can be little doubt that in an application under Ar- ticle 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to see whether the lower courts/tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and if so, whether the impugned order is vi- tiated by procedural irregularity; in other words, the court is concerned not with decision but with decision making process. On this ground alone the order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.” 21. Therefore, in view of the exposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out the case. The impugned order as passed by the learned Trial Court is legal and valid and it does not call for any interference by this Court while invoking the provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 29th May, 2026(veena)