2025:HHC:19538 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 202 of 2024 Reserved on: 17.06.2025 Decided on: 24.06.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hem Raj ......Petitioner Versus Bhulla Singh and another .......Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashist, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 04.03.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. in CMAs No. 51/2023 and 74/2023 in Civil Suit No. 70 of 2023, whereby two separate applications filed by the petitioner under Section 151 and under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) have been dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? 2 2025:HHC:19538 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.70 of 2023, pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. He has filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction in respect of land measuring 1-32-37 hectares, comprised in Khata No. 21, Khatauni No.24, Khasra No. 709 and Khata No. 22, Khatauni No. 25, Kita 26, situated in Tikka Kachhwin, Tappa Dhatwal, Tehsil Bhatwal at Bijhari, District Hamirpur, H.P. (for short, “the Suit Land”). 3. The grievance, as raised by the plaintiff in the suit, is that the entire suit land is joint between the plaintiff and defendants and has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have evil eyes over the suit land and they intend to sell the same in pick and choose manner to some third person without the partition and the consent of the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the defendants had started cutting valuable trees from the suit land and are also trying to disturb the possession of the parties on the spot. As per the plaintiff, the defendants were also trying to encroach the suit land more than their share. The plaintiff further contended that 3 2025:HHC:19538 the defendants had collected three trucks of bricks on the suit land to deprive the plaintiff of his valuable right. 4. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in the following terms has been prayed for:- “(A) A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, assignees and family members from cutting and selling the trees and digging the suit land, raising any sort of construction, collecting the raw material changing the nature of the suit land or alienating the suit land by way of sale, gift or mortgage and creating the charge in pick and choose manner comprised in Khata No. 21, Khatauni No. 24, Khasra No. 709 land measuring 0-01-38 Hectares, and Khata No. 22, Khatauni No. 25, Kita 26, land measuring 1-30-99 Hectares, total land measuring 1-32-37 Hectares, situated in Tikka Kachhwin Tappa Dhatwal Tehsil Dhatwal at Bijhari District Hamirpur, H.P., as per copy of jamabandi for the year 2021-22 till partition through metes and bounds, may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, in the interest of justice and equity.” 5. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC seeking interim injunction. 6. Learned trial Court has issued exparte ad- interim injunction order dated 15.02.2023 on the interim 4 2025:HHC:19538 application of the plaintiff and has directed the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, possession and construction over the suit land till further orders. 7. After about one year of the date of passing of exparte ad-interim order, the plaintiff approached learned trial Court with two separate applications. The first application was filed under Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to implement and enforce the status quo order dated 15.02.2023 with the help of the police. It was alleged that the defendants had started collecting building material on the spot with an intention to raise construction. The second application was filed under Order 39 Rule 7 of CPC with a prayer to appoint Local Commissioner to submit detailed report about the nature and extent of construction raised by the defendants on the spot and also qua the raw material collected by them on the land comprised in Khasra No. 755 measuring 0-04-63 hectares. 8. The defendants contested both the applications and finally, vide impugned order dated 04.03.2024 learned trial Court has dismissed the applications. 5 2025:HHC:19538 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 10. Learned trial Court has dismissed the application for police help on the grounds that from the photographs relied upon by the plaintiff, the existence of construction material and constructed a ‘Palli’ (shed) could only be ascertained but it was not clear as to what was the identity of the land to which the photographs belonged. Learned trial Court further observed that besides the ‘Palli’, some more structures were visible in the photographs and there was no explanation as to whom such structures belonged. Notice was also taken of the fact that the suit land had been partitioned by the competent authority vide order dated 01.05.2023, however, the said order was found to have been stayed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Barsar. 11. As regards the other application, learned trial Court dismissed the same on the identical grounds. In addition, learned trial Court did not find favour with the prayer made in the application on the ground that the plaintiff was to prove his case and the Court was not to be made instrument for collection of evidence. 6 2025:HHC:19538 12. The petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 13. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under:- “227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories int relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. 3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. 7 2025:HHC:19538 (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” 14. 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.” 8 2025:HHC:19538 (ii). In Radhey Shyam & Another vs. Chhabi Nath and others, (2009)5 SCC 166, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered the following exposition of law:- “31. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 of the Constitution vests the High Courts with a power of superintendence which is to be very sparingly exercised to keep tribunals and Courts within the bounds of their authority. Under Article 227, orders of both Civil and Criminal Courts can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. Such power, however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law.” (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 9 2025:HHC:19538 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 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, 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.” 15. Thus, the above exposition of law makes it clear that this Court has restrictive and limited jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The only grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice can be prevented by exercise of such jurisdiction. This Court is not to sit in 10 2025:HHC:19538 appeal over the order passed by the Courts subject to its supervision. The opinion firmed by the Courts or Tribunals cannot also be substituted unless the same is found to be perverse. 16. In the case in hand, no jurisdictional error has been pointed out. 17. One important fact that has emerged and has been considered by the learned trial Court is that the plaintiff had not stated anything about the pendency of partition proceedings at the time of filing of suit. As per the written statement filed by the defendants, the partition was ordered by the competent authority under the H.P. Land Revenue Act on 01.05.2023, whereas the suit was filed in the month of February, 2023. It cannot be believed that no proceedings were pending with respect to partition of the suit land on the date of filing of the suit. Thus, the plaintiff definitely had suppressed the material fact, more particularly, when the entire premise of the suit was the right claimed in a joint unpartitioned land. 18. During the course of hearing of this petition, this Court was informed that the plaintiff had filed appeal 11 2025:HHC:19538 against the order of partition dated 01.05.2023 before the Sub Divisional Collector, Barsar but the same had already been dismissed. Though, the revision filed by the plaintiff against the order of Sub Divisional Collector, Barsar was pending but the order of partition had not been stayed. That being so, the entire substratum of the case of plaintiff has been brought under a serious shadow of doubt. 19. Learned trial Court having taken notice of the fact that the plaintiff had not disclosed anything about the partition proceeding, has proceeded to decline the prayers made in the applications. Evidently, the conduct of the plaintiff was not found to be above board. In view of the fact that the partition had already been ordered between the parties, the denial of the prayers made in the applications by the plaintiff cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. No error of jurisdiction can be said to have been committed by the learned trial Court. Notwithstanding the passing of exparte ad-interim order dated 15.02.2023, learned trial court was not precluded from forming its opinion on a vital fact which emerged on record later. 12 2025:HHC:19538 20. In the above noted circumstances, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 21. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) 24th June, 2025 Judge (GR)