2025:HHC:31696 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 31 of 2022 Decided on : 15.09.2025 Ram Chander …Petitioner Versus Gulam Rasul …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Lovneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That the present petition may very kindly be allowed and the Judgment dated 14-12-2021 passed in case CMA No. 06 of 2021 Reg. No. 579 of 2021 titled as Gulam Rasul VS Ram Chander passed by the District Judge, Mandi, H.P., may kindly be quashed and set- aside after restoring the order dated 07-10-2021 passed in CMA No. 252 of 2021 passed by Ld.Civil Judge, Court 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31696 No.4 Mandi, District Mandi, whereby both the parties were directed to maintain the Status-Quo qua the nature & possession of the suit land till disposal of the suit. in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that order passed by the learned Trial Court in an application filed by him under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) along-with the Civil Suit directing the parties to maintain status quo has been set aside in Appeal by the learned Appellate Court in terms of the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating that the suit property being joint, the construction being raised by the defendant was prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. On this count he prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that perusal of the judgment of the learned Appellate Court would demonstrate that it took into 3 2025:HHC:31696 consideration the extent of the ownership of the plaintiff as well as the defendant and thereafter it relied upon the judgments of this Court as well as other judgments referred to therein and rightly held that no injunction as prayed for by the petitioner could have been granted in his favour by the learned Trial Court, may be by ordering the parties to maintain status quo. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. 6. It is a matter of record that the parties are co- owners. Plaintiff is owner to the extent of 20/328th share in the jointly owned land, whereas, the defendant is owner to the extent of 164/328th share. Learned Appellate Court allowed the Appeal of the present respondent by returning the following findings:- “18. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendant is covering the valuable portion of the land located adjacent to the road and he would be deprived of this land on the partition. He is the co-owner to the extent of 4 2025:HHC:31696 20/328 shares with Ram Chander, who is also an owner of 20/328th share; whereas the defendant is (HP) the owner of 164/328th shares. The plaintiff has not mentioned the length of the road adjacent to the roadside. The defendant has specifically stated that 200 feet road is still lying vacant in the suit land. Thus, it is not established that the plaintiff would be deprived of his right over the land located adjacent to the road. 19. The learned trial Court held that the property has to be maintained in a stage in which it is existing till the rights of the parties are determined. In the present case, there was no dispute regarding the rights of the parties. The plaintiff is the owner to the extent of 20/328th share whereas the defendant is the owner to the extent of 164/328th share. The question whether a co-owner can restrain another co-sharer from raising construction has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court in Murtu Devi(supra). Thus, there was no question of preserving the property and the judgment cited by the learned trial Court did not apply to the facts of the present case. 20. In case the injunction prayed for is withheld, the plaintiff will not suffer any irreparable loss or injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money as the plaintiff 5 2025:HHC:31696 has failed to show any right in himself to restrain the defendant from raising construction while the defendant will be deprived of the use of the land for construction to which it was previously put. Thus, the balance of convenience also does not exist in favour of the plaintiff. 21. In view of the above the order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, this point is answered in the affirmative and is decided in favour of the appellant.” 7. During the course of the hearing of this petition, it could not be demonstrated that the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court in these paras were perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. 8. It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that besides the fact that the share of the petitioner was only but 20/328th share and that of the respondent was 164/328th. The plaintiff indeed had not mentioned the length of the road adjacent to the roadside, whereas, defendant had categorically stated that 200 feet of wide road was still lying vacant in the suit land. Learned Appellate Court in said facts correctly held that the injunction prayed for would deprive the 6 2025:HHC:31696 defendant from the use of the land for construction to which it was previously put. 9. As already observed hereinabove, as it could not be proved before this Court that findings returned by learned Appellate Court were perverse and not borne out from the record of the case, this Court finds no occasion to interfere with them and accordingly this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 15, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)