( 2026:HHC:21066 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 464 of 2025. Reserved on : 26 th May, 2026. Decided on : 2 nd June, 2026. Devmani ...Petitioner. Versus Khem Raj & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tamanna Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral). The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, on 12.06.2025 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the present petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. dated 31.01.2025 was affirmed, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for grant of injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Chachiot at Gohar for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. It was averred in the plaint that the consolidation proceedings started in Muhal Chail/51, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. in the year 1989. Defendants No.1 to 3 in connivance with the consolidation authorities filed separate applications for partition of land on 06.03.1992. The Consolidation Officer in league with defendants No.1 to 3, without the consent and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 as also without taking into consideration the actual physical and joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 in equal shares, clubbed the suit land with other land from separate khewat for partition wrongly and illegally. 3. As per plaintiff, the Consolidation Officer vide orders dated 08.06.1992 passed in applications No. 57/92 and 56/92 filed by defendants No.1 to 3, clubbed the suit land for partition whereby they have been shown to be cosharers with defendants No.6 to 9 wrongly and illegally. As a matter of fact, defendants No.1 and 2 were neither co-owners in Khewat No.19/33 nor in total Khewat 3 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) No.19 and were not even in possession of the suit land as mentioned in the plaint. The consolidation authorities, vide its order dated 8.6.1992 passed in application No.57/92, have allotted Khasra No. 209/2 measuring 0-2-18 bighas to defendant No.1 in one khata and allotted Khasra No. 209/1 measuring 0-1-14 bighas, Khasra No. 212 measuring 0-6-18 bighas and Khasra No.226, measuring 0-2-5 bighas in one khata jointly to defendants No.1 and 2 and the above said allotment was incorporated in Misal Hakiyat Consolidation Muhal Chail/51. As per the plaintiff/petitioner, the consolidation officer has wrongly and illegally allotted the suit land to defendants No.1 and 2 without summoning the plaintiff and defendants No.4 to 6 and without hearing them. The order dated 08.06.1992 is also not in conformity with the scheme framed as also the provisions of H.P. Consolidation Act and Rules, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Further, it has been averred that when the plaintiff came to know about the said order dated 08.06.1992, he filed revision petition under Section 54 of the Act before the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, H.P. However, the same came to be dismissed on 24.09.1997. Therefore, declaration was sought that the 4 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) order dated 08.06.1992 passed in partition application No. 57/92 by the Consolidation Officer, Sundernagar is wrong, illegal, null and void and not in conformity with the provisions of H. P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. Further, it was prayed that the declaration be issued by declaring order dated 24.09.1997 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holding, H.P. in revision petition No. 17/94 to be wrong, illegal, null and void. It was prayed that the revenue entries showing defendants No.1 and 2 as owners in possession of suit land be declared as wrong, illegal, null and void and the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 are joint owners in possession of suit land to the extent of ¼ shares each. Further, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was sought. 5. The suit was contested by defendants No.1 to 3/present respondents. Preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability, limitation, cause of action etc., were raised by the defendants. It was submitted in the written statement that the claims and reliefs claimed in the present suit relate to the matters arising out of the consolidation proceedings under the H. P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act and since the 5 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) plaintiff has availed all the remedies available to him under the Act, therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the present suit is barred under Section 57 of the Act. The suit has been filed in the year 2014 after a lapse of more than 22 years from the date of passing of orders by the consolidation authorities, therefore, the suit as filed questioning the legality of the orders of the consolidation authorities is hopelessly barred by limitation. It has been stated that the plaintiff has challenged the consolidation proceedings in respect of the suit land before this Court in CWP No. 1446 of 1996, titled as Devmani vs. State of H.P. & Ors. and defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 were also arrayed as party respondents, which was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff on 19.09.2011 unconditionally without seeking any liberty. On merits, all the claims as put forth by the plaintiff were refuted and denied and all the averments as made in the plaint were also denied. 6. Along with suit, the present petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC with the prayer that the defendants/respondents No.1 to 3 be restrained by way of temporary injunction from taking forcible possession of the suit land, from raising construction, changing 6 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) nature of the suit land and from dispossessing the plaintiff/petitioner or alienating or creating charge upon the suit land during the pendency of the suit. 7. The said application was duly resisted and contested by defendants No. 1 to 3 by filing the reply, whereby they refuted and denied all the averments as made in the application. 8. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 31.01.2025 dismissed the application as filed by the plaintiff/petitioner on the ground that the perusal of the revenue records go to show that in the latest record the suit land is shown in the exclusive ownership and possession of defendants No.1 and 2. It was held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, the revenue entries contained in the record of right have presumption of truth attached to them. Further, it was held that the present petitioner/plaintiff had challenged the consolidation proceedings with respect to the suit land by filing Civil Writ Petition before this Court, but the same was later on withdrawn. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the CPC in the Court of learned District Judge against the order as passed by the learned Civil 7 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) Judge, Chachiot at Gohar. Learned District Judge, Mandi vide its judgment dated 12.06.2025 dismissed the appeal as preferred by the present petitioner/plaintiff. 10. Still feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. It is contended by Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Tamanna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the impugned judgment and order are erroneous and are liable to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that, in order to maintain balance between the parties, after allowing the application as filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, both the parties be directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property. He further submits that after allowing the present petition, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff may be petition and the order of injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and against the defendants/respondents. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, learned counsel for 8 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) the respondents/defendants has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned courts below. He submits that the learned courts below have rightly declined the equitable and discretionary relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants after going through the entire factual matrix of the case. He further submits that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court will not interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order as passed by the learned courts below. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire material place on record carefully. 14. The plaintiff/petitioner has approached the trial court by instituting a suit for declaration and injunction. In the suit, it has been prayed that the order dated 08.06.1992 passed in partition application No. 57/92 by the Consolidation Officer, Sundernagar be declared as wrong, illegal, null and void and not in conformity with the provisions of H. P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. It has been prayed that the order, which was passed on 24.09.1997 by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, H.P. in revision petition No. 17/94 is wrong, illegal, null and 9 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) void and the same is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 and that the revenue entries showing defendants No.1 and 2 as owners in possession of the suit land are wrong, illegal, null and void and he has sought the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. 15. The defendants have specifically contested the suit on various grounds. It is the case of the defendants that the reliefs claimed in the suit relate to the matter arising out of the consolidation proceedings under the H. P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act and after availing the remedy under the said Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 57 of the Act. It is the case of the defendants that the present suit has been instituted for setting aside order dated 08.06.1992 in the year 2014, as a result of which the suit is hopelessly time barred. It has further been the case of the defendants that the consolidation proceedings were challenged by the plaintiff/petitioner before this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 1446 of 1996 and the said writ petition was withdrawn unconditionally and without seeking any liberty. It is the case of the defendants that on the basis of findings as returned by the consolidation authorities, the revenue 10 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) authorities have rightly incorporated the names of the defendants in the revenue record and they are owners in possession of the suit land. It has been stated in the written statement by the defendants that based upon said consolidation proceedings, the plaintiff sold land from khasra No. 330 (old), Khasra No.351 (new) situated on the road front of Mandi-Gohar road to one Shri Surjeet Singh, which was earlier part of joint Khewat No.19, Khatauni Nos. 27 to 40. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has constructed a residential house-cum-saw mill on Khasra Nos.90, 91 (old) Khasra No. 151 (new). It is further the case of the defendants that defendant No.4 has sold land measuring 00-09-00 bighas to plaintiff under sale deed No.106 dated 19.03.201 and necessary mutation to this effect has also been attested on 31.03.2001. 16. The case file reveals that the suit has been filed pertaining to land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.19/33, Khasra Nos. 209, 212, 226, Kitas 3, measuring 0-13-15 bighas. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land is joint amongst the parties and that the revenue entries in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 are wrong, illegal, null and void. However, the revenue record clearly shows the defendants to be in exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. 11 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) Presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record until and unless the same is rebutted. The plaintiff has failed to rebut the said presumption which is attached to the revenue record. It has come on record that pursuant to consolidation, the plaintiff has sold certain portion of the suit land and not only this, the consolidation proceedings were also challenged by the plaintiff before this Court by filing CWP No. 1446 of 1996 and the said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn on 19.09.2011 by the plaintiff/petitioner. It has rightly been observed by the learned courts below that it is the respondents/defendants who are coming in possession of the suit land. By relying upon the revenue record, the learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court declined the relief of injunction to the plaintiff/petitioner. 17. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents/defendants has drawn attention of this Court that earlier also an application was filed by the plaintiff for grant of injunction. In the said application, order of status quo was passed by the learned trial Court. Against the passing of said order, the defendants had preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The learned appellate Court set aside the order of the learned trial Court 12 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) and dismissed the said application, which filed by the plaintiff. Against the judgment as passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, the present plaintiff had approached this Court by filing CMPMO No. 271 of 2016. This Court vide its judgment dated 02.06.2017, dismissed the petition which was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After the decision and dismissal of CMPMO No. 271 of 2016 on dated 02.06.2017, the plaintiff/petitioner filed second/instant application on 10.12.2024. The instant application came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court by holding that the presumption of truth is attached to the revenue records, whereby it was found that it is the defendants, who are owners in possession of the suit land. The learned appellate Court also affirmed the said findings and came to the conclusion that the earlier application as filed by the appellant averring the similar factual position was dismissed by the District Judgment, Mandi and the said order was also challenged before this Court and this Court has also dismissed the petition challenging the said order. 18. It was found by the learned appellate Court that the revenue records also reflect the similar position qua the exclusive possession and ownership of the defendants No.1 and 2 over the suit 13 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) land. There is nothing on record from which it could be inferred that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. Merely placing on record the photographs of construction site does not prove the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 19. The case does not ends here, now third application for grant of injunction has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner and the copy of the same has been appended by the respondents/defendants as Annexure R-2, which shows that affidavit was typed on 24.07.2025 and the same was attested on 22.09.2025. This Court is in agreement with the submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondents/defendants that the consolidation proceedings were initiated about 22 years ago and the said order is under challenge in the suit which has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in the year 2014. The said proceedings had attained finality and on the basis of order passed in the consolidation proceedings on 08.06.1992, the entries were incorporated in the revenue record. 20. The case file reveals that after consolidation proceedings, the present petitioner/plaintiff has acted upon the same and he has alienated certain portion of the suit land. The relief 14 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) of injunction is equitable and discretionary relief. A person, who approaches the Court for grant of injunction, should approach the Court with clean hands. However, in the present case, the petitioner/plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. Simultaneous applications are being filed for grant of injunction that too when the consolidation proceedings have attained finality. In order to frustrate the rights of the defendants, the proceedings of consolidation are being challenged, so that the parties may litigate for infinity. 21. In order to get the relief of injunction, a party must pass triplicate tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The revenue record clearly shows the defendants to be owners in possession of the suit land. The consolidation proceedings had attained finality and thereafter the petitioner/plaintiff had approached this court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 1446 of 1996 which stood withdrawn by him to the reasons best known to him. 22. Once, the earlier injunction order which was passed by the learned trial Court in favour plaintiff/petitioner was set aside by the learned appellate Court and against the said order the 15 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) petitioner/plaintiff had filed the CMPMO No. 271 of 2016 before this Court, which was dismissed on 02.06.2017, now the second application on the same and similar grounds for grant of injunction could not have been filed. Thereafter, now third application has been filed by petitioner/plaintiff just to drag the defendants in an uncalled for litigation. The case file also shows that an application for amendment of the plaint was preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff, which was rejected by the learned trial Court and against the rejection of the application for amendment of the plaint, CMPMO No. 138 of 2018 was filed before this Court and the same came to be dismissed by this Court on 20.09.2018. 23. In view of the above stated facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff/petitioner is abusing the process of law by filing various applications, which is apparent from the case file. The revenue record prima facie shows the ownership and possession of the defendants over the suit land. Therefore, it is the defendants who have got prima facie case in their favour and balance of convenience also lies in their favour and in case they are injuncted, in that event, it shall be the defendants, who will suffer 16 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) huge and irreparable loss. The learned Courts below have rightly declined the relief of injunction to the plaintiff/petitioner. 24. While invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is bound by the exposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Shri Digant vs M/s P.D.T. Trading Co. & others, Civil Appeal No(s).13801 of 2025. The relevant paragraphs thereof read as under:- “22. The scope of High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 fell for consideration before a threeJudge Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. 1 This Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226, though they may be questioned in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.” 23. In the case on hand, the appellate court had considered whether the proceeding in detail the issue as to court was justified in trial with the case, without further notice to the defendants, after submission of pursis (Exh.42) by defendants’ counsel, claiming no instructions. After a threadbare analysis and taking into consideration 17 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) surrounding circumstances, the appellate court held that the trial court had committed no wrong proceeding with the matter court representing with noticed the the that defendants matter. The appellate Court noticed tht the advocate representing the defndants had claimed no instructions but not sought withdrawal of his Vakalatnama and the matter thereafter remained pending for over three months till it was decided in March 2015. In between no effort was made by the defendants to engage another lawyer. Moreover, the defendants did not come up with a case that their lawyer’s notice was not served on them therefore, they could not engage another counsel Besides that, the record also indicated that the intention of the defendants was to delay the proceedings because earlier also the suit had proceeded ex parte against them though, later, those orders were recalled. Therefore, in our view, once the appellate court took into consideration all relevant aspects including the fact that pursis (Exh.42) did not seek withdrawal of the Vakalatnama, and withdrawal was not even permitted, there was no such jurisdictional error which warranted exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court without any justification procedure went consider the procedure prescribed for withdrawal Vakalatnama when neither withdrawal of Vakalatnama was permitted by the Trial Court nor the pursis prayed for its withdrawal. In such circumstances, the entire exercise of the High Court was misconceived. More so, when the view taken by the appellate Court that defendant cannot take advantage of his own wrong was a plausible view based on materials available on record. Hence, in our view, appellate court’s order was not amenable to interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2278 of the Constitution in interfering with well reasoned order of the appellate Court.” 25. Similar law point was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand 18 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, wherein in paras 15 and 16, 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 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 its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court 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. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. has observed:- "6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited 19 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if 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, which the court or tribunal has come to." 19. The factum that the counsel for the appellant had applied for the certified copy would show that the counsel for the appellant was aware that the ex-parte decree had been passed on the account of failure to lead defence evidence. This would not, however, be a good ground and reason to set aside and substitute the opinion formed by the trial court that the appellant being incarcerated was unable to lead evidence and another chance should be given to the appellant to lead defence evidence. The discretion exercised by the trial court in granting relief, did not suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record or was not a finding so perverse that it was unsupported by evidence to justify it. There could be some justification for the respondent to argue that the appellant was possibly aware of the ex-parte decree and therefore the submission that the appellant came to know of the ex-parte decree only on release from jail on 6th May 2017 is incorrect, but this would not affect the factually correct explanation of the appellant that he was incarcerated and could not attend the civil suit proceedings 20 ( 2026:HHC:21066 ) from 6th October 2015 to 6th May 2017. If it was felt 30 that the application for setting aside the exparte decree was filed belatedly, the court could have given an opportunity to the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay and costs could have been imposed. The facts as known, equally apply as grounds for condonation of delay. It is always important to take a holistic and overall view and not get influenced by aspects which can be explained. Thus, the reasoned decision of the trial court on elaborate consideration of the relevant facts did not warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.” 26. Consequently, there is no error, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and order as passed by the learned Courts below. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed with costs. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 27. 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. Records be sent back henceforth. (Romesh Verma) Judge 2nd June, 2026. (jai)