2025:HHC:32558 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 104 of 2024 Decided on : 19.09.2025 Sh. Desh Raj …Petitioner Versus Sh. Dharam Chand …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 27.01.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P, in CMA No. 67/2024, in Civil Suit No. 88/2014, titled Desh Raj Versus Dharam Chand, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) by the petitioner herein, was dismissed. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:32558 well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and having perused the impugned order, this Court finds no infirmity therein. 3. The application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by returning the following findings:- “3. Heard. Record perused. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and for possession on the grounds that on 07/03/2014, defendant started digging the suit land and collecting raw material and causing interference over the suit land. Perusal of record reveals plaintiff admitted that a demarcation was conducted on 07/302/2014 at the instance of defendant, in his cross-examination, and it was days before he filed this suit. In cross-examination of application has also come that his grievance is that area of his field was reduced in the demarcation and he filed an appeal from the same. However, the perusal of record reveals that the order of dismissal of said application was passed by the Consolidation Officer-Cum-A.C. First Grade, Barsar, vide order dated 07/10/2016, wherein it was observed that relief sought is beyond the scope of his jurisdiction. Further, it is evident that till date no attempt has been made by applicant to get the land 3 2025:HHC:32558 demarcated. Moreover, perusal of case file reveals that evidence of plaintiff was closed by the order of Court and matter was listed for Dws, but applicant has filed present application before defendant led any evidence. As such, present application is filed at pre-mature stage. Therefore, in view of above facts and circumstances, this Court finds no reasons to allow the present application, as such, present application is dismissed. Be tagged.” 4. It could not be demonstrated before this Court that the findings returned in Para-3 by the learned Trial Court were perverse findings and not borne out from the record. In light of this fact, as this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned ordered passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, application of the petitioner was dismissed having been filed at a premature stage, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 19, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)