IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. CMP MO No.255 of 2023 Decided on: 04.12.2025 _______________________________________________ Prabhat Kumar ………..Plaintiff- Petitioner Versus Pushpa Devi and others ……….Defendants-respondents ________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, For the respondents : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri. ______________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral):- The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 27.04.2023 whereby an application preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court has been rejected. 2. Heard, learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Suffice it to state that an appeal preferred against an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC is an appeal of principle. The grounds for interference in the same by the First Appellate Court have been dealt with in the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Wander Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., decided on 26.04.1990,(1990 SCC (SUPP) 727). The relevant extract is reproduced as under:- “…...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 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 reasses the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reasonably possible on the material. The appellate Court would normally not with 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 Gajendragadker, J.in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. Vs. Pothan Joseph. (SCR 721). ….These principles are well established, 3 but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton ‘…. 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.” 4. In the case at hand, in the interim, the present petitioner/plaintiff was seeking the grant of a mandatory injunction. In this respect, the learned Trial Court has examined the question of possession with respect to the suit property. 5. The prima facie view taken in this respect does not suffer from any perversity. Relevant material in this respect has been considered by the learned Trial Court to come to the conclusion that the present petitioner/plaintiff had parted possession of the suit premises in the case at hand in favour of his brother. 6. Grant of an interim order comes within a purview of the equitable jurisdiction of a Court. An individual seeking equity must come to the Court with clean hands. The non- disclosure of the previous litigation inter se the parties in the case at hand, as correctly held by the Trial Court, disentitles the present petitioner/plaintiff for grant of any interim relief. Besides, the aforesaid, the Trial Court has correctly 4 examined the case at hand from the angle of balance of convenience and irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, on the well settled parameters laid down in case titled as Wander Ltd (supra), I see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned impugned order, therefore, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge December 4, 2025 (meera)