2025:HHC:35822 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 252 of 2023 a/w CMPMO No. 331 of 2023 Decided on : 28.10.2025 1. CMPMO No. 252 of 2023 Sh. Umesh Kumar and another …Petitioners Versus Sh. Rakesh Kumar and others …Respondents 1. CMPMO No. 331 of 2023 Rakesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus Umesh Kumar and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : M/s Mohinder Verma and Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocates, for the petitioners in CMPMO No. 252 of 2023 and for the respondents, in CMPMO No. 331 of 2023. For the respondents : Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1, in CMPMO No. 252 of 2023 and for the petitioner in CMPMO No. 331 of 2023. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:35822 Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Both these petitions are directed against judgment dated 24.03.2023, passed by the learned Appellate Court, in a Civil Misc. Appeal No. 29-S/14 of 2022, preferred by the respondent herein, under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’). 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners herein, who are the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents herein, which is pending adjudication at Kandaghat. Along-with the Civil Suit, the petitioners have also preferred an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which was allowed by the learned Court below on 30.12.2019 (Annexure P-8), by directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature, construction, alienation as well as creation of charge over the suit land. 3. Perusal of record demonstrates that feeling aggrieved by the fact that the respondents did not adhere to the said status quo order, the petitioners preferred an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the CPC before the learned Trial 3 2025:HHC:35822 Court. In these proceedings, on the asking of the petitioners, a Local Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report confirming the factum of the respondents continuing to carry out construction over the suit land. In the interregnum, the respondents assailed the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 30.12.2019 and in terms of the impugned order dated 24.03.2023, the Appeal was partly allowed by the learned Appellate Court by returning the following findings:- “10. The next question is if the land in suit is taken as Joint, whether defendants No.1 to 4 have any equity in their favour and the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek temporary injunction against them. As stated earlier the defendants have claimed that they are in exclusive possession of the land on which they are raising construction. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned trial court had appointed a local commissioner vide its order dated 31.03.2021. He was asked to visit the spot and ascertain the factual position. This order was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. The report of local commissioner is on record. No party has filed objections to this report. The report is accompanied with photographs of the spot. The photographs show that 4 2025:HHC:35822 structure is complete and only finishing/ completion work is to be done. At this stage directing parties to maintain status quo qua construction would seriously prejudice the defendants No.1 to 4. They have spent huge money on this construction. They are not strangers to the suit land rather have a half share in the land which comes to 15 bighas. Their possession is not shown to be in excess of their share. As such, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that defendants No.1 to 4 at their risk and peril may do completion/ finishing work of this structure/ water tank. The same shall be subject to the final judgment in the suit. However, they shall not excavate fresh land for raising construction and maintain status quo qua possession and user. The photographs and the report of local commissioner shall form part and parcel of this order. The appeal is partly allowed and impugned order is modified to this extent. The observations are only for the disposal of this appeal and shall not affect the case on merits. Record of this court be consigned to the record room the record of learned trial court along with a copy of this order be returned forthwith.” 5 2025:HHC:35822 4. Whereas the petitioners had assailed the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court on the ground that the learned Appellate Court gave premium to the respondents of their own acts of omission and commission, the same stands assailed by the respondents on the ground that as in terms of the revenue records, the suit land already stood partitioned, therefore, injunction or restraint order could not have been passed against them. 5. When this case was listed before this Court on 26.05.2023, this Court had in the interim passed an order restraining the respondents from raising any kind of construction on the suit land or from alienating the suit land in any manner or creating any charge there. This order is in force till date. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court in the facts of the case is not sustainable. 7. Once an injunction order was granted by the learned Trial Court and a Local Commissioner was appointed to 6 2025:HHC:35822 ascertain as to whether the order was being flouted by the defendants, who returned his findings in the affirmative, such report of the Local Commissioner could not have been used by the learned Appellate Court to come to the rescue of the party which was infringing the interim directions passed by the learned Trial Court. By doing so, learned Appellate Court has given premium to the present respondents for their own acts of omission and commission of flouting the interim order passed by the learned Trial Court. 8. As far as the contention of Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in CMPMO No. 252 of 2023 and for the petitioners in CMPMO No. 331 of 2023 is concerned, that no injunction be passed against the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the fact that there is a status quo order in force since 26.05.2023, it would be in the interest of justice in case both these petitions are disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the construction on suit land and by restraining the respondents from alienating the suit land in any manner or creating any charge thereupon during the pendency 7 2025:HHC:35822 of the suit proceedings. 9. Ordered accordingly. These petitions are disposed of in above terms by modifying the order passed by the learned Appellate Court by directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land. Respondents shall not carry out any further construction on the suit land nor they shall alienate the suit land or create any charge thereupon during the pendency of the suit or without the leave of learned Trial Court. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 28, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)