IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 49 of 2023 Decided on: 31.07.2025 ____________________________________________________ Minka Ram ……….. petitioner Versus Hukam Chand and others ……….respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Romesh Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 to 3 & 5. : None for respondent No.4 : Respondent No.6 is proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 7.3.2023. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 6.12.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in CMA No. 561 of 2022, where an application filed by the present petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for removal of shed on the suit land alleged to have been raised during the pendency of the civil suit, wherefrom the present proceedings arise has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order and the pleadings appended alongwith. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The present petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and consequential relief of mandatory injunction insofar as the suit land is concerned. 4. Based on the pleadings in the plaint, the following relief was claimed:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed with costs and the defendant be permanently restrained from causing any kind of interference in any manner in suit land and also be restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from suit land and in case during the pendency of the present suit the defendants succeed in forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from or any part of the suit land in that event as a consequential relief the defendants be mandated to restore the possession of suit land to plaintiff. Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and justice be done. An affidavit is attached herewith.” 5. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for removal of the shed alleged to have been raised during the pendency of the suit. To the application so filed, a detailed reply was filed wherein the alleged illegal dispossession from the suit land of the present petitioner was categorically denied. 6. In the facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court while dismissing the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has correctly observed that the petitioner in the interregnum cannot be granted a mandatory injunction when facts pleaded by the petitioner have yet to be 3 proved. Even otherwise, allowing of the present application and grant of mandatory injunction in the interregnum/at the present stage would amount to grant of final relief in the case at hand which is not permissible. 7. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under:- “227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over 4 any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” 8. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, it has been held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181, it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can 5 possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 9. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice. 10. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition to invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the aforesaid, I see no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 06.12.2022. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous, applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge July 31, 2025 tarun