2025:HHC:34738 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 655 of 2023 Decided on: 14.10.2025 Hans Raj and others … Petitioners Versus Malkiyat Singh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Shubham Singh Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the orders passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the application filed by the respondents herein alongwith the Civil Suit, under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the appeal filed by the present petitioners against the order passed by the learned Trial Court under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure were dismissed. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. 3. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court demonstrates that the learned Trial Court took note of the fact that 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34738 the factum of the plaintiffs being tenants over the suit land stood decided in their favour in RSA No. 69 of 1982, which was decided on 01.05.1991 and according to the plaintiffs, they had become owners in possession of the suit land by virtue of operation of the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974. Learned Trial Court held that the contention of the defendants that they were in actual possession of the suit land was not supported by any revenue entries. Primarily on this basis, learned Trial Court returned the findings that as the applicants were stating that the respondents were trying to dispossess the applicants from the suit land forcibly in an illegal manner, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondents from causing any interference over the suit land and changing the nature of the suit land is granted. 4. Learned Appellate Court upheld the order passed by the learned Trial Court by holding that it stood proved from the record that the defendants claimed possession without actually being in possession and prima facie, material on record including the FIRs etc. demonstrate that the defendants were causing interference over the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and therefore, the order passed by learned Trial Court calls for no interference. 3 2025:HHC:34738 5. Though, learned Counsel for the petitioners made a strong endeavour to demonstrate that the order and the judgment under challenge were perverse but it could not be demonstrated before this Court that the findings that were returned by said Courts while passing the impugned order and judgment were either perverse or not borne out from the record of the case. That being the case and further as material on record suggests that the revenue record does not substantiate the contentions of the petitioners herein whereas it does substantiate the contentions of the respondents herein, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and judgment, more so in exercise of power conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in exercise of which power, this Court is not to act as an Appellate Court. In light of above discussion, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed but with the observation that the findings that have been returned by the learned Courts below in the impugned order as well as in the judgment are only for the purpose of the adjudication of the said application as well as the appeal and the civil suit shall be decided by the learned Trial Court expeditiously without being influenced by any observation made herein. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if 4 2025:HHC:34738 any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 14, 2025 (narender)