2025:HHC:34142 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(OS) No. 24 of 2025 Decided on: 26.09.2025 ____________________________________________________ Anjali Mehra and another ....Appellants. Versus Dinesh Kumar and others …Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Advocate. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellants: Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr.Abhinav Thakur, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP No. 23603 of 2025 In view of the averments made in the application, delay of 1 day in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. FAO(OS) No. 24 of 2025 2. Challenge by the defendants No.1 and 2/appellants is to the grant of injunction by the learned Single Judge, whereby, they have been restrained from alienating, encumbering, changing nature of the suit land or creating third party interest. Learned Single Judge also while keeping in mind the clauses of the agreement dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 07.08.2014 has kept it open and granted that liberty to seek modification/vacation of the order in case Civil Suits referred to in paragraph 5 of the agreement are decided against the present appellants. The reason as such to grant the said injunction is that the suit is for specific performance and the appellants predecessor in interest herein has already received 3.25 crores out of Rs.4 crores and in such circumstances, it has been held that property should be preserved, so as to protect the rights of the appellants. 3. During the course of the arguments, it transpires that the present appellants are LRs of Rajkumari Indira Mahindra, whereas dispute as such is going on between the LR; of the said person who was the first party to the agreement and with her brother in Civil Suit No. 4 of 2007 and Civil suit No. 38 of 2009, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, which is also mentioned in Clause 5 of the agreement. 4. It is also brought to our notice that even possession is not there with the present appellants and in such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no irreparable loss and injury as such has been caused to the appellants. The order has been passed to ensure that there is no multiplicity of litigation and to ensure that the property is not further alienated and a third round of litigation is not created. 2 5. In such circumstances, basic principles of irreparable loss and injury and balance of convenience on account of the fact that 80% of the consideration amount has already been received through RTGS in favour of the first party the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants , therefore, now they cannot turn around and object to the order which is only for preservation of the property. Resultantly, we do not find any ground as such to interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 26 th September, 2025 ( Bipin Chander Negi ) (priti) Judge 3