2025:HHC:2997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.34/2025. Date of Decision: 14th January, 2025. Narain Dass & Ors. .....Petitioners Versus Subhash Chand & Ors. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 17.12.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, HP in CMA No.323 of 2024 in Civil Suit No.47-I of 2022, titled Subhash Chand & Ors. Vs. Narain Dass & Ors, whereby the Station House Officer of Police Station Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, HP has been directed to implement the order of status quo qua nature as shown in “earlier photographs” and to demolish the wall constructed by the respondents with the aid of respondent/plaintiff. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and the impugned order appended along with the present petition. 3. The respondent/plaintiff, in the case at hand, had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The permanent prohibitory injunction, in the case at hand, had been 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:2997 sought against the present petitioners/defendants from raising a wall intended to block the approach of the respondent/plaintiff to their residential house. In this respect, it was pleaded in the plaint that the petitioners/defendants has collected construction material and is about to start construction of the aforesaid wall. In the alternative, a decree for mandatory injunction was sought, if in case during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff succeeded in raising the wall. 4. To the aforesaid suit, a written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioners/defendants. Conspicuous by absence in the entire written statement is a plea that the wall in question had already been raised. Based on the aforesaid pleadings before the trial Court, vide interim order dated 02.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) parties were directed to maintain status quo qua nature as shown in ‘earlier photographs’, possession and construction over the suit land till the disposal of the main suit or till the suit land is legally partitioned, whichever would be earlier. 5. The aforesaid order was assailed by the present petitioner/defendant before the concerned District Judge. However, on 14.06.2023, the appeal for reasons best known was withdrawn. Hence, the order dated 02.07.2022 had attained finality. 6. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the respondent/plaintiff had approached the trial Court twice before filing the present 3 2025:HHC:2997 application, for implementation of the status qua order dated 02.07.2022. The reason for filing the present application being that despite getting police assistance for implementing the order the same had not been implemented till date. Previously, when police help had been granted the petitioners/defendants had approached this Court on the previous occasion and then had withdrawn the petition so filed. 7. In order to substantiate the claim of raising of the wall in the case at hand, photographs were placed. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that photographs depicting the construction of the wall has been denied by the present petitioners/defendants. It is in the said backdrop that the respondents/plaintiffs in order to get the interim order dated 02.07.2022 implemented had been successful in showing to the trial Court the construction of the wall in the case at hand. 8. Admittedly since, in the case at hand, photographs now placed on record, depict a change in terms of construction on the suit land, therefore I see no error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, whereby in the interest of justice, SHO of Police Station Jhandutta, Bilaspur was directed to implement the order of status quo qua nature as shown in the ‘earlier photographs’ as were placed on record which were taken into account when the interim order dated 02.07.2022. The impugned order correctly order demolition of the wall constructed by the petitioners/defendants with the aid of the petitioners/defendants. 4 2025:HHC:2997 9. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 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.” 5 2025:HHC:2997 10. 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, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. 12. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Vacation Judge 14th January, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)