2025:HHC:34161 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 415 of 2020 Decided on : 09.10.2025 Smt. Begma Devi and others …Petitioners Versus Sh. Ramesh Kumar and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for petitioners No.1 & 2. Petitioner No.3 is stated to be dead. For the respondents : None for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Rocky, Advocate, vice Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, vice Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 4(a). Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP(M) Nos. 1738 & 1739 of 2025 By way of these applications, prayer has been 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34161 made to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.3 and for condonation of delay in filing the said application. 2. In light of the averments made in the application and also as there is no objection on behalf of the non- applicants/respondents, same are allowed. Proposed legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.3 are substituted as petitioners No.3(a) & 3(b) in her place. Delay in filing the application is condoned and abatement, if any, is set aside. Applications stand disposed of accordingly. CMPMO No. 415 of 2020 3. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of newly impleaded petitioners No.3(a) & 3(b). 4. By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 07.10.2020 passed in Misc. Application No. 4/2019 by the respondent No. 4 (a) may kindly be set aside /quashed by allowing the application filed by the petitioners and justice 3 2025:HHC:34161 be done.” 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the order under challenge. 6. Perusal of the record demonstrates that in a suit filed by the petitioners, the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), seeking an interim injunction, restraining defendants No. 1 to 3 from alienating or transferring the ancestral land, was rejected by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 23.04.2018. The order has been perused by the Court as the same was made available by learned counsel for the parties. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners assailed the same by way of an Appeal. The Appeal was allowed by the learned Appellate Court on 24.07.2018 vide Annexure P-1, in the following terms:- “18. As a result of my findings on point No.1 above, the instant appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 23.4.18 passed by the Id trial court is set aside and the respondents no.1 to 3 alongwith plaintiffs are directed to maintain status quo qua alienation of the disputed land which was 'mutated mutated 4 2025:HHC:34161 in favour of the respondents,1,2, and further through exchange in favour of respondent no.3 till disposal of the main suit.” 7. Said order has been challenged by the petitioners/plaintiffs before this Court. 8. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that learned Appellate Court granted partial relief to the plaintiffs and as the relief so granted, was granted at the behest of the plaintiffs, therefore, they have no right to assail the same by way of this petition. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the necessity for filing the petition arose due to the fact that whereas in these proceedings, the Official Authority had stated that the land in issue was not being acquired, however, in proceedings before CALA, orders were being passed qua the compensation of the same land, does not impress the Court. 10. Herein, the proceedings are to be decided on the basis of the pleadings, which are on record, in the present proceedings only and in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders being passed by CALA, then the same is a separate 5 2025:HHC:34161 cause of action for which the petitioners have to approach the appropriate Authority, in terms of law. 11. However, as far as the present case is concerned, as this Court finds no perversity in the order passed by learned Appellate Court which incidentally has not been assailed by the defendants, therefore, this Court sees no reason to interfere therewith. As the learned Appellate Court has protected the interest of the plaintiffs, they have no locus to file this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the findings returned by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in the course of the adjudication of the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and the Appeal filed under Order XLIII of the CPC shall be construed to have been passed only for the purpose of deciding the application and the Appeal, respectively and same shall have no bearing as far as the adjudication of the Civil Suit is concerned. 12. Further, as far as the order of CALA is concerned, as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners, the dismissal of this petition shall not come in way of the petitioners 6 2025:HHC:34161 assailing the same, if they are advised to do so, in accordance with law. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 09, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)