IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 135 of 2022 Decided on : 21.05.2025 Mohan Lal. .…Petitioner. Versus Kamal and Anr. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Het Ram, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. N.K. Bhalla, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 24.03.2022, passed by learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in C.M.A. No. 6-S/14 of 2021, whereby the appeal of the respondents herein 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15006 ) filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, against order dated 21.08.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Solan, H.P. in C.M.A. No. 98-6 of 2021, was allowed and consequently the interim injunction order granted by learned Trial Court was vacated. 3. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 75-1 of 2021, pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Solan, H.P.. Respondents are the defendants and for convenience, the parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status as they hold before the learned Trial Court. 4. Plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants in respect of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 54/78, Khasra Nos. 190/24, 193/25, 196/28 Kitas 3 measuring 01-15-00 Bighas, Khata Khatauni No. 7/12, Khasra No. 43, 44 Kitas 2 measuring 07-13-00 Bighas, Khata Khatuni No. 6/11 Khasra Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 151/41 Kitas 5 measuring 34-04-00 Bighas 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15006 ) situated at Mauza Khali Tehsil and District Solan H.P. (for short ‘suit land’ ). 5. The premise on which the suit is filed is that the land is joint between the parties; there was no partition by metes and bounds between the parties and without the partition of land defendants were trying to usurp best portion of the suit land by raising construction thereon. 6. Defendants by way of their written statement have controverted the stand of the plaintiff. A specific plea has been taken that the plaintiff himself has constructed service station for service of transport vehicles on more than 6 biswas of land adjoining to main road/highway and the said land is also part of the suit land. The details about the construction raised by the plaintiff have been provided. On such count, plaintiff has been alleged to have suppressed material facts from the Court. It has further been submitted that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, have jointly got the map for construction sanctioned from competent authority and 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15006 ) defendant No. 1 has already given his no objection. According to defendants, defendant No. 2 was proposing to raise construction in terms of the plan so sanctioned by the competent authority. 7. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2021, allowed the application of the plaintiff in following terms:- “8. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and three salutary principles for granting temporary injunction regarding which applicant has completely satisfied this Court. This Court deems it appropriate to allow the application of the applicant to the extent that respondents are restrained from changing the nature, raising construction, cutting trees or making any waste or damage to the suit property till the suit is not decided on merits. Before parting with the order, it is made clear that the observations made here-in-before are strictly for the disposal of this application only and nothing contained therein shall construe an expression of opinion on any controversy between the parties on the merits of the suit. Application stands disposed off accordingly. 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15006 ) Be tagged with the main case file due completion.” 8. Defendants assailed the aforesaid order passed by learned Trial Court by filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure before learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. The appeal of the defendants has been allowed vide impugned order dated 24.03.2022. Hence this petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 10. The fact that the land is joint between the parties is not in dispute. From the plaint, it is known that the entire suit land is quite a big chunk of land. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendants by their action as complained in the plaint are trying to waste the entire suit land. It is averred in the plaint that defendant No. 2 had started construction over the land comprised in Khata Khatouni No. 54/78. From the written statement, it has been clarified that Khasra Nos. 190/24, 193/25 and 196/28 are included 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15006 ) in Khata Khatauni No. 54/78 and on a substantial part thereof plaintiff has already raised his construction and is using the same for commercial purpose. 11. Learned Appellate Court has found that the plaintiff had filed the suit without disclosing the material fact as to existence of his construction and structure over part of the suit land. He has also found that the plaintiff had raised the construction abutting the main road/highway and for such reason his objection as to raising on construction by defendant No. 2, on the similarly situated land is without substance. 12. The aforesaid findings of fact have not been shown to be perverse. In fact, such findings are duly borne from the record. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. It is more than settled that a person seeking discretionary relief has to approach the Court with clean hands. No plausible explanation has come forth from the plaintiff as to why he did not disclose the factum of he being 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:15006 ) already in possession of commercial structure on the suit land, which was raised by none else than him only. Once, the plaintiff is enjoying the suit land by raising such a structure, he definitely cannot be said to have a right to obstruct the other co-owners from using the suit land within the limits of extent of their share, unless some special damage is proved by the plaintiff. That being not the case, no interference is required in the impugned order. 13 Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 14. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merit of the case and shall be construed for the disposal of the present petition only. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 21st May, 2025 Judge (sushma)