2025:HHC:13601 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.7 of 2025 Date of decision: 09.05.2025 Praful Kuthiala ……Petitioner Versus Ram Murti and another ……….Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1 : For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat, Advocate. For the respondents: Ex-parte ________________________________________________________ Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, appearing for the respondents pleads no instructions. Since there is no representation on behalf of the respondents, they are proceeded ex-parte. 2 Aggrieved by the vacation of order of status quo by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Una. , the plaintiff/petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the reversal judgment dated 30.9.2024. 1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ? 2 3 The petitioner had approached the learned trial court by filing suit for possession of the suit land and demolition of superstructure raised over a part thereof, comprised in Khasra No. 911 on the ground of ownership, which ownership otherwise has not been denied by the respondents. However, the only claim putforth by the respondents was that the suit land was initially owned and possessed by Sarasti, widow of Kadumal, Jagat Ram (father of the petitioner), Ram Kishan, Harnam Dass etc. and after the death of Sarasti, the suit land was succeeded by Jagat Ram, Ram Kishan, Harnam Dass etc. Mutation in their favour was attested and Jagat Ram etc. were recorded in possession of the suit land. The predecessor of the respondents was tenant at will since 1965 under the predecessor of Sarasti on payment of galla batai and after passing of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the predecessor in interest of the respondents became owners of the suit land. 4 In addition to the aforesaid submissions, it was also averred that the petitioner had concealed material facts that the his predecessor in interest, Jagat Ram and his two brothers Ram Kishan and Harnam Dass had entered into an agreement to sell the suit land dated 2.7.1981 in presence of 3 marginal witnesses and received earnest money of Rs.3000/- at the time of agreement at the rate of Rs.940/- per kanal and further agreed to execute the sale deed, for which they reserved their right to file a separate suit for specific performance of the agreement. 5 The learned trial court after hearing the parties and after applying the principles as applicable to the application filed under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC directed the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, construction or excavating the earth in and over the suit land till the final disposal of the main suit. 6 The respondents being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate court, which allowed the same vide judgment dated 30.9.2024 and aggrieved thereby the plaintiff/ petitioner has filed the instant petition. 7 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 8 It would be noticed that one of the main grounds taken by the learned first appellate court for vacating the order of status quo is that the respondents had been in continuous possession of the suit land since long time and in 4 addition thereto, it has been observed that the parties have withheld the record of previous litigation. 9 The record reveals that the predecessor of the petitioner had earlier filed a suit for possession, however the same was dismissed in default which would clearly not operate as res judicata. 10 As regards possession of the respondents, it was for the respondents to have clearly set up before the Court regarding the right and capacity under which the respondents were claiming higher right than the petitioner, who admittedly is owner of the suit land. 11 If the respondents were claiming tenancy as is alleged by them under the predecessor of the petitioner and have become automatic owners of the suit land under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in the year 1975 itself then where was the need for them or their predecessor to have entered into an agreement to sell on 2.7.1981 being the owner. After all a person cannot be owner and tenant or possessor at the same time. 12 Moreover, once the lis of the instant nature was already pending adjudication before the learned court below, I am of the considered view that status quo qua the suit land otherwise was required to be maintained by the parties or 5 else it would give rise to further complications particularly if the nature of the suit land may be altered or changed or construction came to be raised thereupon. 13 In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, I find merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned first appellate court is quashed and the status quo order passed by the learned trial court is upheld during the pendency of the main appeal. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) 09th May, 2025 Judge (yogesh/pankaj)