Shanta Devi Vs. Tilak Raj and Anr. CMP(M) No.1577 of 2024 in RSA No.247 of 2020 22.11.2025 Present: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Raditya Katoch, Advocate, vice Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Name of respondent No.2 is deleted vide order dated 09.01.2025. CMP(M) No.1577 of 2024 Present application has been filed under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the CPC, alleging therein that there has been infraction of the interim order passed by this Court on 05.08.2021. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and reply. The relevant extract of the order alleged to have been violated is being reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “By way of instant application filed under Order 41 rule 5 and Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, read with Section 151 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant for staying the execution and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.01.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal No.31-D/XIII/2018 and restraining the non- applicants/respondents from interfering in the suit land, in any manner. Since, despite sufficient opportunities, no reply has been filed to the aforesaid application, judgment as detailed hereinabove, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, is stayed and during the pendency of appeal, parties are directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property. Alteration/Vacation/Modification on motion. Application stands disposed of.” In the application, it has been alleged that certain construction on the already existing structure has been raised by the non-applicant. The non-applicant admits raising of the said construction. The applicant, in the case at hand, was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction. The allegation in the suit being that the non- applicant is threatening to cover more area, than his share in the suit land. Both the Courts below have categorically held that the suit land is joint. Insofar as the allegation made by the present applicant before the learned trial Court was concerned, no evidence was led by the plaintiff to prove his allegations. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the interim order passed by this Court dated 05.08.2021, directing the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property has to be considered and examined. In the present case, only some vertical extension to the building has been made. The interim order dated 05.08.2021 does not prohibit any construction over the already existing structure, as it does not state that the structure of the building as on date is to be preserved. A lateral expansion of the already existing structure would have definitely resulted in a violation of the interim order dated 05.08.2024. As the same would have resulted in an increase in possession on the suit land. No lateral infraction has been alleged. Therefore, insofar as the nature of the property in the present case is concerned, it remains the same, a building. Other than the aforesaid, during the pendency of the present proceedings nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that the non- applicant has increased his possession over the suit land over and above, as was existing on 05.08.2021. In view thereof, I see no merit in the present application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, therefore, the present application is dismissed being devoid of merit. Application stands disposed of. (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 22nd November, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)