1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 559 of 2025 Decided on: 8.9.2026 Girdhari Lal … Petitioner Versus Bakshish Singh & anr. …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Girdhari Lal has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 19.3.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15-XIV-2024, titled as, ‘Girdhari Lal versus Bakshish Singh & another. 2. By way of order dated 19.3.2025, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, 2 preferred by the petitioners, against the order dated 25.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1018 of 2024, filed in Civil Suit No. CNR No. HPUN03- 001291-2024, in case titled as, ‘Bakshish Singh & anr. versus Girdhari Lal’. 3. By way of order dated 25.11.2024, the learned trial Court has partly allowed the application, filed by the respondents, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by directing the parties to maintain status quo, qua nature, character and construction over the suit land, till final disposal of the suit. 4. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 5. Necessary facts, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under: Plaintiffs Bakshish Singh and another have filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the 3 defendant, from changing the existing nature and character by raising any sort of construction, or in any other manner, or alienate any specific and better portion of the land measuring 00-48-32 hects. comprised of Khewat No.642/573, min Khatauni No. 1003/950, 1000/947, 1001/948, bearing khasra Nos. 1287, 1289, 1290/1, as entered in the Jamabandi, for the year 2017- 2018, situated in village Rampur, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the suit land’), or in the alternative, suit for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to remove the super-structure, if so raised by the defendant, forcibly, during the pendency of the suit. 5.1 The suit has been filed, on the ground, that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and defendant, alongwith other co-sharers, and the same has not been partitioned between the co-sharers, through metes and bounds. 5.2 According to the plaintiffs, defendant is a very clever and influential person of the locality and is threatening to change the existing nature and character 4 by raising construction or alienating the best and specific valuable portion of the suit land. 5.3 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made that the suit may kindly be decreed. 6. Alongwith the civil suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for restraining the defendant from changing the existing nature and character by raising any sort of construction, or in any other manner alienating any specific and better portion of the suit land. 7. The suit, as well as, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC have been contested by the defendant, by pleading that all the co-sharers, in Khewat No. 642, have separate and exclusive possession, over the part of the suit land, since the year 2010, as per the mutual settlement. 8. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, has partly allowed the application, by directing the parties to maintain status quo, qua the nature, character and construction, over the suit land, till the final disposal of the main suit. 5 9. The said order has unsuccessfully been assailed by defendant Girdhari Lal, before the learned First Appellate Court. 10 Now, the defendant is before this Court, by way of present petition. 11. Admittedly, the parties to the suit land are co- sharers and and suit land has not been partitioned, by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs are not asserting the fact that the defendant is ousting them from their possession, nor, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the act of the defendant, in raising construction, amounts to ouster. 12. The plaintiff has made the following prayer in the suit: It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, from changing the existing nature and character by raising any sort of construction or in any other manner of alienate any specific and better portion of the land measuring 00-48- 32 Hects comprised of Khewat no.642/573 min khatauni No.1003/950, 1000/947, 1001/948 bearing khasra nos. 1287, 1289, 1290/1 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 situated in village Rampur P.S, Tehsil and District Una and in the alternative suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove 6 the super structure, if so raised by the defendant forcibly during the pendency of the suit and to restore the suit land in its original position as it exist today may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant with costs.” 13. Similar relief has been sought by moving the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 14. Admittedly, efforts have not been made by any of the parties to get the suit land partitioned. Meaning thereby, final relief, if granted to the plaintiffs, would amount ouster of the defendant from the suit land. When, the final relief cannot be granted to the plaintiffs, then, they are not entitled for interim relief. 15. Situation would have been otherwise, had the plaintiffs sought relief of injunction, restraining the defendant, from changing the nature of the suit land, by raising construction, till the partition of the land. However, in the present case, plaintiffs have sought relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from changing the existing nature and character of the suit land, by raising any sort of construction. The said relief cannot be granted to the plaintiffs. As such, this 7 Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has fallen into error by directing the parties to maintain status quo, qua the nature, character and construction, over the suit land. 15. Considering the above facts, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order, passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. Consequently, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by the plaintiffs, is dismissed. 16. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 17. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. (Virender Singh) 8.9.2026 Judge Kalpana