IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.655 of 2022 Decided on: 10.10.2025 ____________________________________________________ Jitender Kumar and others ……….. petitioners Versus Inder Singh ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petitioners are the defendants before the trial Court. Vide impugned judgment dated 9th September, 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Mandi District Mandi on an application preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, the present petitioners has been restrained from causing any interference on the suit land. Appeal preferred against the impugned order dated 9th September, 2025 was dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court on 30.11.2022. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgments. 3. The respondent in the case at hand being the plaintiff before the trial Court, had filed a suit seeking a decree of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the present petitioners/defendants from interfering with the suit land in any manner whatsoever and mandatory injunction was also sought in case the petitioners/defendants succeeding in raising construction or changing the suit land during the pendency of the suit. As per the Jamabandi for the year 2014-15, the present respondent was shown as a co-sharer in possession of the suit land. 4. In the suit so filed, it has been alleged that the present petitioners/defendants are strangers to the suit land and they are owners of the adjoining land. It was on account of interference caused by petitioners/defendants them with the suit land, by way of raising new construction thereupon that the present respondent/plaintiff was forced to institute the suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction. 5. In the written statement filed, the present petitioners/defendants primarily claimed the suit land by way of an exchange with the respondent based on an un-registered agreement. It is further alleged that the 1st storey on the suit land was constructed almost 30 to 35 years ago. Presently construction has already been raised on the second storey. Besides the aforesaid, preliminary objections regarding the non- joinder of the parties, proper valuation for court fees, jurisdiction and maintainability have been raised. 3 6. The Jamabandi in the case at hand records the present respondent as a co-sharer in possession of the suit land. The 1st Appellate Court has correctly held that a co-owner can file a suit in his own right and while doing so the consent of the other co-owners is presumed, a thirty party cannot object on this account that the suit is bad for non-joinder of other co-sharers. 7. Besides the aforesaid, the 1st Appellate Court has correctly held that the exchange being relied upon in the case at hand is an unregistered agreement, and an exchange can be effected only by way of registered documents. 8. Moreover, the present petitioners have admitted in their pleading that they are raising construction over the suit land which was exchanged by them with the respondent. Hence, it has been correctly appreciated by the 1st Appellate Court that the construction is being raised on the suit land. 9. Presumption of truth attached with the revenue record depicting the plaintiff as the co-owner of the suit land has not at all been rebutted by the present petitioners/defendants. The 1st Appellate court has correctly appreciated the grant of injunction by the trial Court on the relevant parameters of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 4 10. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181). 11. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of above terms, I see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court, therefore, the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 10th October, 2025 tarun