1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.188 of 2025 Date of Decision : 23.12.2025 Gopal Singh …… Petitioner Versus Jog Raj and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 03.11.2025, whereby the First Appellate Court has interfered in an order dated 12.06.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, on an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, granting injunction in favour of the applicant/plaintiff. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment and order. 3. The appeal preferred before the First Appellate Court is an appeal on principle. The scope of interference of the First Appellate Court in exercise of jurisdiction under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dealt with by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Apex Court in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727, titled Wander Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd. The relevant extract is being reproduced here-in-below:- “14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph : (SCR 721). ... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osention & Co. v. Johnston the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case. The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.” 4. From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court, it is evident that while passing the impugned order, the First Appellant Court has taken into account the principles relevant for grant of interim relief, in the case at hand. Besides, it is evident that prima facie no 3 material has been placed on record to show any infraction on the water tank situated on the suit land nor any damage to the suit land, as alleged has been prima facie established before the First Appellate Court. 5. Against the impugned order, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, i.e., a CMPMO would be maintainable in terms of law laid down by the Apex Court, in Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander and others, 2003 (6) SCC 675 and not a revision petition as has been filed in the case at hand. 6. In view of the aforesaid, present revision being devoid of merit is dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) December 23, 2025 (KS) Judge