2025:HHC:17901 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 30 of 2024 Reserved on: 2.6.2025 Date of decision : 6.6.2025. Begam ...Petitioner. Versus Kumar Singh @ Loduthai & others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. O.P. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: By way of instant petition, order dated 19.7.2023, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 34/23/19 has been assailed, whereby the order dated 11.6.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Mandi has been set aside. 2. Petitioner and proforma-respondents herein are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 47/18/16, pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Mandi and respondents No. 1 to 4 are the defendants. The parties hereafter, for the sake of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- convenience, shall be referred to by the same status, as held by them before the learned trial Court. 3. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the partition order dated 29.1.2016, passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Balh, District Mandi in Case No. 514/14 is illegal, null and void. Relief has also been sought to restrain the defendants from causing any interference in the suit land and in alternative, a decree for possession has been claimed. 4. The suit land has been detailed in the plaint as under:- “…..land comprised under Khewat Khatauni 49/73, Khasra Nos. 67, 132, 141, 172, 243250, 278, 335, 439, 497, 521, 538, 541, 580, 617, 675, 570, total Kittas 18 measuring 08-11-15 bighas, situated in Mauhal Rewalsar/127, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P. ….”. 5. The plaintiffs have filed the suit on the premise that the suit land is joint between the parties. Though, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Balh, District Mandi has passed the order of partition with respect to the suit land but the said order has been challenged by the plaintiffs on the ground that it was passed at their back. The plaintiffs have also set up a plea that in a family arrangement between the predecessors-in- -3- interest of plaintiff No.1 and defendants No. 2 to 4 an exchange was effected and the entire suit land had come to the share of the plaintiffs. As per plaintiffs, the defendants were trying to interfere in the suit land. 6. The defendants have filed the written statement. An objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the suit in view of specific bar under Section 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (for short the ‘Act’). On merits, it has been stated that the suit land has been partitioned in accordance with law and separate possession has been allotted to the parties. All the formalities had been completed save and except the attestation of mutation. All other contents of the plaint have been denied in generality. 7. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking an interim injunction against the defendants. An order was sought to restrain the defendants from causing any interfering in the suit land till the suit land was partitioned by metes and bound. 8. The defendants contested the application. 9. The learned trial Court vide order dated 11.6.2019 allowed the application and directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession over the suit land till -4- the final disposal of the suit or till partition of the same by metes and bound, whichever was earlier. 10. The learned District Judge on an appeal preferred by the defendants has set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court, hence the instant petition. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 12. Learned trial Court proceeded to pass an order directing the parties to maintain status quo on the premise that the suit land was recorded jointly in the ownership and possession of the parties and until the same was partitioned in accordance with law, none of the co-sharers had any right to exclusively enjoy the same. As regards the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Balh, District Mandi in partition proceedings pertaining to the suit land, the learned trial Court observed that an appeal against the order of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Balh, District Mandi was pending and for such reason, the order of partition had not attained finality. 13. Learned District Judge has found that the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs was impleaded as a respondent in the partition proceedings. The service was effected on the said person through his son-in-law, hence the plea that the order of partition was passed at the back of the -5- plaintiffs was not accepted. The learned District Judge also came to prima-facie conclusion that the bar on the jurisdiction of Civil Court laid under Section 171 of the Act will apply in the facts of the case. As regards the claim of exclusive right of the plaintiffs over the suit land on account of alleged exchange between the parties, the learned District Judge observed that the exchange could not have been effected without registered document. It has also been observed that a co-sharer cannot restrain the other from raising any construction or changing the nature of joint land unless such act constitutes prejudice to other co-sharers. Since the plaintiffs were held to have no prejudice, the application of the plaintiffs for an interim injunction was dismissed. 14. On thoughtful consideration of the facts, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, as the reasons recorded therein are borne from the record. During the course of hearing of instant petition, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs fairly conceded that the appeal filed against the order of partition passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Balh, District Mandi has been withdrawn. In this view of the matter, the order of partition passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Balh, District Mandi had attained finality. It is not the case of the plaintiffs -6- that the suit land was not the subject matter of partition order. Rather, a challenge has been laid to the partition order on the ground that the plaintiffs were not served. 15. Prima facie the stance of the plaintiffs stands falsified, as the learned District Judge has found that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs was duly served in the partition proceedings. Since, the only ground of the plaintiffs to assail the partition order has been discredited the bar created by Section 171 of the Act prima-facie appears to apply in the instant case. 16. Further, the partition order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Balh, District Mandi having attained finality cannot be allowed to be scuttled by order of an injunction passed by the Civil Court, particularly keeping in view the facts of instant case. 17. The plea of exchange raised by the plaintiffs has also been rightly disbelieved by the learned District Judge, as the plaintiffs have not placed on record any tangible material to substantiate the same. 18. Thus, the plaintiffs have no prima-facie case to seek injunction against the defendants with respect to the suit land. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss also is in favour of the defendants. -7- 19. In result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 6th June, 2025. (kck)