2025:HHC:19397 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 71 of 2025 Date of decision : 23.6.2025. Ghanshyam ...Petitioner. Versus Surender Kumar & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 5.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan in Civil Miscellaneous appeal No. 20-S/14 of 2023, whereby the order dated 13.4.2023, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan in CMA No. 48/6 of 2023 has been modified. 2. The petitioner and respondents herein are the defendant and plaintiffs respectively before the learned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- trial Court. The parties will be referred to by the same status, as they held before the learned trial Court. 3. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant on the premise that the land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 1/1 situated in Mauza Dochi-Chamaran, Tehsil and District Solan, was joint and unpartitioned inter-se the parties to the suit, as also other co-owners. The land with respect to which the plaintiffs have filed the suit has been described by khasra Nos. 10, 11, 52, 53 and 59. It is alleged that on the land, as mentioned in the plaint, old ancestral house besides cow sheds of the plaintiffs and defendant existed. The defendant after dismantling cow shed owned and possessed by him had started raising construction and in this process, he allegedly had tried to raise construction on the courtyard in front of old ancestral house and the path used for ingress and egress to the house and cow shed. 4. The defendant has filed the written statement. He has alleged that the plaintiffs themselves have also -3- raised construction on their respective houses. As per defendant, he was raising the construction within the limits of his chow shed and had denied the existence of any path or courtyard at the place where he is raising the construction. 5. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs have also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking ad-interim injunction. The defendant contested the same, however, vide order dated 13.4.2023, the learned trial Court allowed the application and directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the construction upon land comprised in khasra Nos. 52 and 53 till final disposal of the suit. 6. Learned trial Court confined its relief to khasra Nos. 52 and 53 by taking into consideration the stand taken by the plaintiffs during the hearing before said Court, restricting their relief in interim to the said khasra numbers only. 7. The defendant assailed the order passed by the learned trial Court by filing appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 -4- (r) of the Code. The learned Additional District Judge, Solan-I vide impugned order dated 5.10.2024 has allowed the appeal of the defendant partly and the defendant has been allowed to raise construction in a portion shown in orange colour between cow shed of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 in the site plan relied upon by the plaintiffs. The other part of the order passed by the learned trial Court was kept intact. The defendant has further assailed the aforesaid order by way of instant petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 9. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is limited to correct the orders passed by the Courts and Tribunals, which are without jurisdiction or perverse. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court will neither sit in appeal nor will substitute its own opinion. This Court will not even correct errors of law much less the errors on facts in instant proceedings. -5- 10. Coming to the facts of the case, the impugned order appears to be equitable in the facts of the case. During the course of hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record complete jamabandi of land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 1/1 and the total area of said khata is more than 300 bighas. It is not the case of either of the parties that they have already applied for partition of the joint land. It being so, the rival factual contentions of the parties cannot be decided by the learned trial Court or by the First Appellate Court by deciding the application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2. The defendant in his written statement has taken a stand that he was raising construction on the portion where his old cow shed. The learned Appellate Court has considered the said plea of defendant and has allowed him to raise construction by marking the portion in a site plan presented before the Court by the plaintiffs. The defendant has not conclusively shown on record that his old cow shed was existing on area more than the area described in the impugned order. -6- 11. In the factual background, as discussed above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed and the order dated 5.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan in Civil Miscellaneous appeal No. 20-S/14 of 2023 is affirmed. 12. Petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 23rd June, 2025. (kck)