2025:HHC:41350 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP No. 45 of 2022 in Civil Suit No. 14 of 2022 Reserved on: 21.11.2025 Date of decision: 3.12.2025. M/s Sanobar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant/Plaintiff Versus M/s Green Leaf & another ...Non-applicants/Defendants Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the applicant/plaintiff: Mr. Sarvdaman Rathore, Advocate. For the non-applicants/ defendant: Ms. Suhani Gautam, Advocate, vice counsel for defendant No.1. Mr. Naveen Awasthi, Advocate, for defendant No.2. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: The instant application has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ‘Code’), seeking status quo ante by directing the non- applicants/defendants to restore the possession of the suit property in favour of the applicant/plaintiff. Prayer has 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- also been made to restrain the non-applicants/defendants from creating third party interest in the suit property by transfer, alienation, creation of charge, lease, partnership and franchise etc., and also from mis-appropriation of the infrastructure, equipment and facilities installed by the applicant/plaintiff in the suit property, till disposal of the suit. 2. The applicant/plaintiff has filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the property known as “Green Leaf Hotel”, situated in Mauza Prini, Kothi Jagat Sukh, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). A prayer has also been made for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the non-applicants/defendants from creating third party interest by transfer, alienation, creation of charge, lease, partnership and franchise etc. during the subsistence of lease period as per lease agreement dated 22.3.2021. Additionally, a decree of mandatory injunction has further been sought, directing the non-applicants/defendants to restore the infrastructure equipment and facilities, installed by the -3- applicant/plaintiff and also to restore the bill book records and other miscellaneous articles of the applicant/plaintiff. 3. The above noted suit and application have been filed on the premise that the non-applicant/defendant No.1 being the owner of the suit property had leased the same in favour of the applicant/plaintiff for the period 1.4.2021 to 31.3.2026 at annual lease consideration of Rs. 96,00,000/- with stipulation for 5% increase every year. The agreement between the applicant/plaintiff and non-applicant/ defendant No.1 had been executed for above purpose on 22.3.2021 and in pursuance thereof, the lease period commenced w.e.f. 1.4.2021. The applicant/plaintiff has alleged that in the year 2021, the hotel business had been adversely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and consequent restrictions imposed by the Government and keeping this in view, a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding (for short ‘MOU’) was entered between the applicant/plaintiff and non-applicant/defendant No.1, whereby certain modifications in the terms of original lease were carried. -4- 4. The applicant/plaintiff has shown the grievance that despite the payment of amount due under the lease deed dated 22.3.2021 read with MOU dated 23.6.2021 to the non-applicant/defendant No.1, the applicant/plaintiff was not allowed to carry the business in the suit property peacefully. It is alleged that on 25.9.2021, the defendants along with three unknown persons had entered into the suit property and threatened/manhandled the staff of the applicant/plaintiff. The illegal demand of Rs. 50,00,000/- was allegedly made as pre-condition to allow the applicant/ plaintiff to run the hotel. 5. The applicant/plaintiff has also alleged that in addition to the payment of due lease money to the non- applicants/defendants, it had made investment worth Rs. 33,00,000/- in the suit property for its beneficial use. 6. The applicant/plaintiff at the first instance had filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 125 of 2021 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Manali on 28.9.2021 with a prayer for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the non-applicants/defendants to restrain them from causing any type of interference in the suit property. The learned -5- Civil Judge, Manali issued ‘Dasti’ notices to the non- applicants/defendants, returnable for 29.9.2021, on which date, the non-applicants/defendants recorded their presence before the learned Court along with their counsel. The matter was adjourned to 22.10.2021. Learned Civil Judge, Manali vide order dated 29.9.2021 had recorded that as stated by learned counsel for the parties that there were chances of an amicable settlement between the parties and some time was sought for such settlement. The adjournment was granted in this background. 7. The applicant/plaintiff then filed an application on 8.10.2021 for preponement of Civil Suit No. 125 of 2021 before the learned Civil Judge, Manali. The said application was allowed and the case was preponed to 19.10.2021,on that date, the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff made a statement before the Court that he was under instructions from the applicant/plaintiff to withdraw the suit. Accordingly, the suit was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. 8. The specific allegation of the applicant/plaintiff in the instant suit/application is that the defendants had -6- forcibly dispossessed the applicant/plaintiff from the suit property on 7.10.2021. A complaint allegedly was made to the police but as per the allegation of the applicant/ plaintiff, the police did not take any action and lastly, the applicant/plaintiff had to take legal recourse at Gaziabad and in pursuance thereto, FIR No. 1252 of 2021 was registered in Police Station, Nandigram, Gaziabad, UP. 9. The non-applicants/defendants have filed their written statement. The facts regarding execution of lease deed dated 22.3.2021 and MOU dated 23.6.2021 have been admitted. The non-applicants/defendants, however, have blamed the applicant/plaintiff of having defaulted in performance of terms and conditions of lease deed and MOU. It has been alleged that the applicant/plaintiff had failed to make the payment of due amount under the lease and MOU to the non-applicants/defendants. The cheques issued by and on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff for discharge of liability under the agreement and MOU were allegedly dishonoured. The non-applicants/defendants have alleged that the intention of the applicant/plaintiff from beginning was malafide. The averments with respect -7- to the investment made by the applicant/plaintiff in the suit property have specifically been denied. 10. As regards the allegation of dispossession of plaintiff/applicant from the suit property, the non- applicants/defendants have denied the same. As per the non-applicants/defendants, the applicant/plaintiff had not been able to run the hotel in the suit property despite there being no impediment. It has been contended that though Covid-19 conditions were prevailing but the hotel business had not come to a halt, rather the applicant/ plaintiff was earning handsomely from the business. It has further been alleged that the applicant/plaintiff without issuing a prior notice of three months in terms of the agreement and MOU had all of sudden abandoned the possession of the suit property on 30.9.2021 and left the same unattended and in such conditions, the non-applicants/defendants had to take charge and possession from the next day to save and protect the suit property. 11. It has also been the case of the non-applicants/ defendants that the suit with a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the applicant/plaintiff -8- in the Court of Civil Judge, Manali, which was later withdrawn unconditionally. The intent of the applicant/ plaintiff in filing the said suit and its withdrawal has also been targeted as malafide. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 13. In the backdrop of the facts, as noticed above, the core of the dispute between the parties is whether the applicant/plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by the non- applicants/defendants on 7.10.2021 or it had on its own abandoned the suit property on 30.9.2021. The issues have already been framed in the suit and the parties are to prove their respective contentions by leading the evidence. 14. At this stage, it is to be seen whether the applicant/plaintiff has prima facie case to seek interim injunction, as noticed above. 15. Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff at the time of hearing had fairly submitted that he will not press the prayer (i) of OMP No. 45 of 2022. Thus, the applicant/plaintiff is now seeking to restrain the non- applicants/defendants from alienating, transferring or -9- creating third party interest in the suit property by way of interim injunction. The applicant/ plaintiff is also seeking protection and preservation of its assets in the suit property. 16. In order to establish prima facie case, it is incumbent upon the applicant/plaintiff to satisfy the Court as to existence of such material that prima facie lends credence to its allegation of forceful dispossession, for that can be the cause for applicant/plaintiff to succeed in the suit. However, except for the bald assertions made in the plaint and in the application, no substantive material has been placed on record by the applicant/plaintiff to persuade this Court to exercise discretion in its favour. 17. It is the specific allegation of the applicant/ plaintiff that he was dispossessed from the suit property wrongly by the non-applicants/defendants on 7.10.2021. Noticeably, the applicant/plaintiff had filed application in Civil Suit No. 125 of 2021 before the learned Civil Judge, Manali with a prayer to prepone the matter and the date of presentation of the application was 8.10.2021 i.e. a day after the alleged incident of illegal dispossession of the -10- applicant/plaintiff. The contents of the application were totally silent on the aspect of illegal dispossession. On the contrary, it was stated that the non-applicants/defendants were trying to dispossess the applicant/plaintiff from the suit property, as the learned Civil Judge, Manali had not passed any interim order to restrain them from doing so. 18. The learned Civil Judge, Manali had allowed the application by preponing Civil Suit to 19.10.2021. On the said date also i.e. 19.10.2021, the applicant/plaintiff had not made any complaint before the learned Civil Judge regarding his alleged dispossession, rather the suit was simply withdrawn without assigning any reason. 19. Applicant/Plaintiff has filed with the plaint a copy of complaint dated 7.10.2021 submitted by it to the Superintendent of Police, Kullu. In this complaint also, it was alleged that on 30.9.2021, non-applicant/defendant No.1 along with his labourers had tress passed into the suit property and had created nuisance. There was no allegation of dispossession. No other complaint allegedly submitted by the applicant/ plaintiff to police authorities in the State of Himachal Pradesh has been placed on -11- record. The aforesaid complaint dated 7.10.2021 was evidently dealt with on 8.10.2021 and 9.10.2021 by the Police authorities. 20. The documents filed by the applicant/plaintiff with the plaint to establish the investments allegedly made by him in the suit property, also prima facie belie his stand as most of these documents pertain to the period either before commencement of lease or after his alleged dispossession. 21. Thus, in my considered view, the applicant/ plaintiff has not been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction in his favour. 22. Additionally, it can be seen that the prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction sought in the plaint is to restrain the non-applicants/defendants from alienation etc. of the suit property till subsistence of the lease period. In this view of the matter, the applicant/plaintiff cannot seek enlargement of interim relief. The lease period as agreed between the parties is about to come to an end on 31.3.2026. In the given circumstances, even the balance of -12- convenience and irreparable loss is not found to exist in favour of the applicant/plaintiff. 23. It also cannot be said to be a case where the applicant/plaintiff cannot seek relief of being compensated in terms of money. 24. In result, there is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 3rd December, 2025 (kck)