2025:HHC:34406 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.475 of 2023 Decided on: 09.10.2025 Balbir Singh … Petitioner Versus Sh. Pyare Lal … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and judgment dated 19.04.2023 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal CIS Case No. 18 of 2022 affirming the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckongpeo in Civil Misc. Application No. 63 of 2022 may kindly be set aside and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner has approached this Court feeling 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34406 aggrieved by non-grant of interim relief in his favour by the learned Trial Court as well as rejection of the appeal by the learned Appellate Court preferred against the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 13.09.2022. While rejecting the application, learned Trial Court returned the findings that the petitioner had not been able to make out a case demonstrating the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Learned Trial Court also held that the photographs which were being placed on record to demonstrate that a ‘Chhaja’ was being constructed by the respondent were neither accompanied by any negative nor any certificate under the provisions of Section 65-B, (2) and (4) of the Indian Evidence Act. In appeal, learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the same on 19.04.2023 by holding that the demarcation report on record demonstrated that whatever construction was carried out by the respondent was on his own property and the subsequent cause alleged by the appellant with regard to the construction of ‘Chhaja’ was vague, as the photographs which were placed to demonstrate the same were neither accompanied by a negative nor a certificate as was required 3 2025:HHC:34406 under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. A perusal of the record of this case demonstrates that when the case was taken up on 06.09.2023, no stay was granted by the Court. The Court otherwise stands informed that the ‘Chhaja’ allegedly constructed upon the land of the petitioner has otherwise been constructed. 4. That being the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present proceedings now have lost their efficacy and no purpose is going to be served by deciding the same on merit. 5. Accordingly, these proceedings are closed, but with the observation that whatever has been held by the learned Courts below in the impugned order is confined to the adjudication of the application and the appeal before them and said findings will have no bearing as far as final adjudication of the Civil Suit is concerned and the learned Trial Court shall decide the Civil Suit on its own merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 09, 2025 (Rishi)