2025:HHC:33898 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.696 of 2019 Decided on: 07.10.2025 Nitin Garg … Petitioner Versus Smt. Mahima Negi & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned Order, dated 23.10.2019, Annexure P-6, passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge (2), Shimla in CMA No.15-S/14 of 2017 titled "Mahima Negi & Others Vs Nitin Garg", whereby the Appeal filed by the Respondents against the Order, dated 20.3.2017 Annexure P-5 passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Court No.1, Shimla in CMA No.98-6 of 2016 titled "Mahima Negi & Others Vs Nitin Garg" has been allowed, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application Annexure P-3 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. When the case was listed before this Court on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:33898 15.11.2019, the following order was passed:- “Caveat Petition No.365/2019 Allowed and disposed of. CMPMO No.696 of 2019 & CMP No.12642/2019 Issue notice. Mr. Naresh Sharma, learned counsel, appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Parties to maintain status quo, qua nature & possession over the suit land till the next date of hearing. List on 6th December, 2019. Record of learned Courts below be also requisitioned before the next date. Copy dasti.” 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the controversy involved in this petition, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be served in case the parties are directed to maintain status-quo, qua nature and possession of the suit land as was directed by this Court on 15.11.2019, with further direction to the learned Trial Court to expedite the disposal of the Civil Suit itself. 4. This Court is making this observation, for the reason that as the order of status-quo is in force for the last six years, it would be in the interest of justice in case the same continues till the disposal of the Civil Suit. 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by modifying the 3 2025:HHC:33898 order under challenge by directing the parties to maintain status- quo, qua nature and possession of the suit land till the decision of the Civil Suit as was ordered by this Court on 15.11.2019, with further direction to the learned Trial Court to ensure that the Civil Suit is decided expeditiously. Learned Trial Court shall take up the matter from the stage from where it stands now and as far as the evidence is concerned, learned Trial Court shall ensure that not more than three opportunities are given to either of the parties to lead their evidence. It also goes without saying that if replication etc. has not been filed, then only one opportunity in this regard shall be given to the plaintiffs and further proceedings in the matter shall also be completed expeditiously. The parties shall render full assistance to the learned Trial Court in expeditiously deciding the matter. It is made clear that the observations which have been made by this Court in this order are only for the purpose of adjudication of this petition and the learned Trial Court shall decide the main suit without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in this petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 07, 2025 (Rishi)