2025:HHC:23706 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 38 of 2025 Decided on: 22.07.2025 Vinoj Sharma … Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate. For the respondent : M/s Shubham Sood and Suneet Verma, Advocates. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioner alongwith a civil suit that has been instituted by him against the respondent/defendant, under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been dismissed and so was also the fate of the appeal that was preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Trial Court on said application. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the orders under challenge as well as other 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23706 documents appended with the petition. 3. A perusal of the plaint that has been filed by the petitioner demonstrates that a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner praying for a decree of permanent injunction by restraining the respondents from raising any kind of construction by way of raising steel and RCC walls around the columns of the pillars of towers, details whereof are given in the plaint, so as to divert the flow of water of river Salani towards the property of the petitioner. The prayer made in the application under XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the COPC was also to the same effect. 4. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have rejected the application and the appeal of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the petitioner received the compensation amount that was paid to him by the defendant in lieu of utilization of his land for the construction of said towers and further the suit was filed when 95% work of construction of the towers was complete. In fact, learned Appellate Court has gone to the extent of holding that in terms of the record, the petitioner had accepted full and final payment of Rs.19,63,869/- for Tower No. 35 and there was a completion certificate furnished on record in terms whereof the work of laying of transmission line has already been completed on 29.09.2024. During the course of hearing of this petition, it could 3 2025:HHC:23706 not be demonstrated on behalf of the petitioner that the findings so returned by learned Appellate Court were perverse and not borne out from the record. Therefore, in light of the fact that the Tower in issue has already been constructed in the mode and manner in which it was intended to be constructed, now the application filed praying for interim relief has been rendered infructuous on account of subsequent developments. Therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the order passed by learned Appellate Court as well as order passed by learned Trial Court and accordingly, these proceedings are closed but with the observation that the main civil suit shall be decided by learned Trial Court uninfluenced of any observation made by this Court in the course of disposal of this petition as well as of the observations made by learned Appellate Court in the course of the disposal of the appeal, order passed wherein stood assailed by way of this petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 22, 2025 (narender)