2025:HHC:24082 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 37 of 2018 Decided on : 24.07.2025 Sh. Om Prakash and another. …Petitioners Versus Sh. Lekh Ram (deceased) through his Lrs. and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Ms. Seema Kaushal Guleria, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Nitish Negi, Advocate, for respondents No.6 to 8. Respondents No.3 and 5 are proceeded against ex-parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) This petition was filed by the petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the non-grant of interim orders in their favour, by the learned Trial Court, in a Civil Suit filed by them as well as the dismissal of the Appeal preferred by them against the order passed by the learned Trial Court in an application filed under 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:24082 Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. A perusal of the record demonstrates that when this petition was first time listed on 18.01.2018, the Hon’ble Vacation Judge was pleased to order status quo qua nature and possession of the suit/property. Further, there is a miscellaneous application on record i.e. CMP No. 6424 of 2018, filed by respondent No.1, in terms whereof a prayer has been made by the said respondent that the petitioners be restrained from raising any construction/changing the nature of the suit property, till the decision of the petition. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that there is a status qua order operating since the year 2018 and a similar prayer is there in an application filed by respondent No.1 that the petitioner be restrained from carrying out any construction over the suit property, this petition is disposed of by modifying the impugned order to the effect that the parties shall maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land and the petitioners shall not carry out any construction thereupon, so as to prejudice the interests of the respondents. It is further observed that as the Civil Suit was filed in the year 2016, 3 2025:HHC:24082 learned Trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the same, as expeditiously as possible. 4. The Court has been intimated that the suit is at the stage of recording the evidence of the parties. It is ordered that ordinarily not more than three opportunities be granted to either of the parties to lead evidence and as observed hereinabvoe, a serious endeavour shall be made by the Court to decide the case, as expeditiously as possible. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 24, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)