2026:HHC:19773 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.58 of 2026 Reserved on:14.05.2026 Decided on: 26.05.2026 Kamal Kishore ….Petitioner Versus Virender Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Garla, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition arises out of the judgment as passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, dated 01.01.2026, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff under Order 43 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed and the order as passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. dated 30.06.2025 was affirmed, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was ordered to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the 2 2026:HHC:19773 present respondent Virender Kumar. It was stated in the plaint that the suit property is comprised of Khewat/Khatauni No.85 min/305, bearing Khasra Nos.1211, 1254, 1255 & 1256, Kita 4, land measuring 00-02-73, 00-00-24 & 00-01-49 hectares, total land measuring 00-05-30 hectares, situated at Mohal Sarkaghat/230, Illqua Suranga, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. The plaintiff has been allotted one shop which has been divided into two portions on the ground floor, and the plaintiff is running an established business of hardware and paints in the same. In the upper storey, although the shops are vacant, the same are in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff as per family arrangement. The plaintiff has installed two signboards of Ultratech Building Solutions on the top of ground floor and first floor. The defendant, without the consent of the plaintiff, forcibly started the work of staircase after forcibly demolishing some portion of the upper storey of the possession of the plaintiff. The defendant is threatening and bent upon to damage the signboards of Ultratech Building Solutions, which are installed on the front of the shops. The defendant, along with his son, has started threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, to the detrimental interest of the plaintiff. Therefore, it was prayed that decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, 3 2026:HHC:19773 restraining the defendant from causing any interference whatsoever qua the nature and possession over the suit land/property, changing the nature and possession of the suit land/property, damaging the signboards of Ultratech Building Solutions be passed in favour of the plaintiff with further prayer that decree for mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to dismantle the structure thereby restoring the suit land to its original position as it existed at the time of filing of the suit. 3. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The applicant/plaintiff prayed for passing of an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant, through himself or through his servants, agents and representatives from causing any interference whatsoever qua the nature and possession over the suit property, changing the nature, raising any construction and dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land during the pendency of suit. 4. The suit was contested by the defendant by raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action, non-joinder, valuation etc. On merits, it was averred that earlier the shops, where the plaintiff is running business in ground 4 2026:HHC:19773 floor, were actually in the possession of the predecessor-in- interest of the defendant under the name of Hira Lal Paras Ram Gupta. The said firm had been running the premises since 1955 and the father of defendant was its proprietor until1980. After the death of father of defendant on 08.01.1980 through a mutual understanding within the joint family, the plaintiff became the sole proprietor of firm. Both the parties, as well as the family members, carried on the business of the said firm jointly till 2012. Thereafter, the family members amicably decided to separate the business and the shops of ground floor where the plaintiff is running business remained in his possession. It was further submitted that in the year 1978 a new firm has been registered in the name of defendant with name and style ‘M/s Virender Kumar and Company’ to run a business of Wholesaler and retailer. Later on, the defendant has taken the agency of Kamdhenu paints in the year 2010 and started said business in the upper story of the present building with the prior consent of the plaintiff and other family members. It was further submitted that the alleged signboards have been installed by the plaintiff in the absence of the defendant and his family, as he had gone out of station. It was stated that the plaintiff was never in the possession of upper storey hence, no consent of any kind was required before starting 5 2026:HHC:19773 the work of staircase. It has been averred that the defendant has renovated his premises/shops. It is not the defendant, but rather the plaintiff, who is threatening the defendant with dire consequences and his trying to dispossess him from the suit property illegally without any right, title and interest. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit as filed by the plaintiff. 5. The defendant filed reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. All the averments as made in the application were denied and it was stated that despite the passing of ad interim status quo order by the Court, the applicant/plaintiff illegally and in violation of Courts order, fixed the signboards. When a request was made to him to remove the them; he flatly refused to do so. 6. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 30.06.2025 dismissed the application as filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/petitioner preferred an appeal under Order 43 read with Section 151 of CPC in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. on 04.07.2025. The learned first appellate Court vide its judgment dated 01.01.2026 dismissed the appeal as preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner. 6 2026:HHC:19773 8. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is contended by Mr.Ajay Vaiday, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the judgment and order as passed by the learned Courts below are erroneous, wrong and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the learned Courts below have wrongly declined to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff despite making out a prima facie case in his favor. He submits that after accepting the present petition, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC be allowed. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Tarun Gorla, Advocate, has defended the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Courts below. He submits that this Court will not interfere while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of concurrent orders passed by learned Courts below. He submits that the scope of interference in the present proceedings is very limited and this Court will not re-appreciate and reweigh the material as placed on record before the learned Courts below. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the case file thoroughly. 7 2026:HHC:19773 12. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondent/defendant before the learned trial Court alleging that he has been allotted one shop, which has been divided into two portions in the ground floor. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the upper storey although there are shops which are vacant, but the same are in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff as per family arrangement. The defendant without prior consent of the plaintiff started the work of staircase after forcibly demolishing some portion of upper storey under the possession of the plaintiff and is threatening and bent upon to damage the signboard of Ultratech Building Solutions, which has been installed on the front of shop/spot. 13. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that in the year 1978 a new firm has been registered in the name and style of M/sVirender Kumar and Company for running a business of Wholesaler and retailer, both of hardware steel and cement. The office of the same still exists in the ground floor by the side of the shops of the plaintiff and later on the defendant has taken the agency of Kamdhenu paints in 2010 and started the said business in the upper storey/first floor of the present building. The 8 2026:HHC:19773 defendant has categorically denied that the plaintiff ever remained in the possession of upper storey. 14. The plaintiff has to satisfy the triplicate tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for grant of injunction. In the present case, the copy of the jamabandi for the year 2022-2023, which has been placed on record pertaining to Khasra Nos.1211, 1254, 1255 and 1256 shows that it is being possessed by several persons. In the column of cultivators, names of the plaintiff and the defendant are being depicted. The presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record until and unless the same is rebutted by some cogent evidence. The precise case, as set up by the plaintiff, is that in a family partition which was executed about 30 years ago shops on the upper storey were allotted to him and after the said family partition he is in exclusive possession of the same. The revenue record depicts different picture whereby the suit property is in possession of different persons as shown in the jamabandi for the year 2022- 2023. The plaintiff/petitioner has failed to place on record any document to establish and prove that any family partition took place between the parties, or that the shops on upper storey were handed over to him in that partition. In the absence of any document or record, the plea which has been set 9 2026:HHC:19773 up by the plaintiff cannot be taken as gospel truth. The defendant has placed on record copy of Certificate of Registration under the H.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 having TIN No.02090500277 which shows that respondent Virender is running the business at VPO Sarkaghat since 1978 and was running a business even in the year 2012. The bill showing the respondent to be running the business establishes that it is the respondent who is in possession of the upper portion of the building and not the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in order to establish that he is in possession of the upper storey, has not placed on record any document which may crystallize the rights of the parties. 15. Learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that it is not the plaintiff, but rather the defendant who has got prima facie case in his favour. The revenue record in conjunction with the Certificate of Registration under HP Value Added Tax, 2005, shows that it is the defendant who is in possession of the suit property and not the plaintiff. The case file reveals that the defendant is occupying upper portion of the building. Therefore, it is the defendant who has got prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience also lies in his favour. In case, the defendant is injuncted in the present proceedings, in that event he shall suffer irreparable loss. The plaintiff has failed to pass the 10 2026:HHC:19773 triplicate tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Therefore, both the Courts have rightly declined the order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 16. It has come on record that after passing of ad interim injunction order, whereby the learned trial Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo, the plaintiff in violation to the said order, installed signboards of Birla Opus Paints on 28.03.2025. A person, who approaches the Court for grant of discretionary and equitable relief, must approach the Court with clean hands. In the present case, the plaintiff, after passing of ad interim order, installed signboards in violation to the order of status quo passed by learned trial Court. After taking into consideration the conduct to the plaintiff/petitioner, the learned trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s alleged act of altering the status of the property by installing a new signboard, contrary to the direction of the Court undermines his claim for equitable relief and the existence of a prima facie case in his favour. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the scope of interference while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the High Court is very limited and narrow. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2072 of 2022, Ibrat 11 2026:HHC:19773 Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited has held as follows: 14. In view of the above, in the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a) (iii) of the 2019 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised. 14.1 The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, which has been consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC Online SC 29). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim 12 2026:HHC:19773 stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2226 of 2010, titled State of Haryana & Ors vs. Manoj Kumar, has held that jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. It has been held that The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. It has further been held that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. The Apex Court held that this Court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit. The Apex Court held as follows: 23. More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench of this court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or 13 2026:HHC:19773 jurisdiction. 24. This court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath’s case in a subsequent judgment in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu AIR 1963 SC 1895. The court observed that jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. 25. This court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566 . The court observed as under:- “The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. for this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 26. This court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576. 14 2026:HHC:19773 The court again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 27. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 28. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi & Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 this court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits. 29. This court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit.” 18. The senior counsel for the respondent has placed on record a document which reveals that, at the time of acquisition of the land in question between the parties, the compensation was determined by the competent authority and was apportioned amongst the parties, including the defendant, which falsifies the 15 2026:HHC:19773 case of the plaintiff that it is only the plaintiff who is in possession of the suit property, including the upper story, after the family partition. 19. Therefore, this Court sees no infirmity or illegality in the orders as passed by learned Courts below. Consequently, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 20. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observation made here- in- above, which are only for the purpose of the instant petition. (Romesh Verma) Judge 26th  May, 2026 (vt)