2026:HHC:23566 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 33 of 2025 Reserved on: 15.06.2026 Date of decision : .06.2026. Chuhar Singh (deceased) through LRs ...Petitioners. Versus Milkha Singh (deceased) through LRs & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, vice counsel for respondents No. 1 (a) to 1 (g). Romesh Verma, Judge: The instant petition arises out of the impugned judgment as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. dated 23.12.2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioners was dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra dated 26.10.2024 was affirmed, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was ordered to be dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the present petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration against the present respondents in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. It was averred in the plaint that in the litigation which was instituted by the defendants with respect to the partition of the suit land, the revenue officers ignored the request of the plaintiffs and did not follow the mandatory provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (for short the ‘Act’). The partition proceedings which took place inter-se the parties was carried out without following the provisions of the law and the mode and manner as envisaged under the Act was completely bye-passed. It was stated in the plaint that the defendants in connivance with revenue officials got front portion of the road to the extent of more than 28 meters in excess of their entitled share contrary to alleged mode of partition and even reduced the width of existing path from 5 meters to 3 meters in revenue records. 3. As per the plaintiffs, the defendants are headstrong persons and have no regard for the law and taking advantage of the partition proceedings, the defendants are trying to disturb the settled possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, decree for declaration and consequential relief of permanent prohibitory -3- injunction was sought against the defendants before the learned trial Court. 4. It was prayed in the plaint that the partition order as passed by the learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nurpur dated 07.06.2003 and subsequent orders passed in Case No 94 of 2003 by the Sub Divisional Collector, Nurpur, dated 30.07.2005 and thereafter in Appeal No. 203 of 2006 dated 27.11.2010 and thereafter, by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Revenue Appeal No. 09 of 2011 dated 19.12.2024 and further order in Review Petition No. 05 of 2015 dated 04.12.2015 and instrument of partition drawn on the basis of order dated 07.06.2003 affirmed by the learned Collector, Fatehpur vide its order dated 25.08.2017 are null and void, illegal and wrong and the same may be declared as null and void. 5. The suit as preferred by the plaintiffs/petitioners was contested by the present respondents/defendants by raising preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action, jurisdiction and estoppel etc. In the written statement, it was averred by the defendants that the suit land has been finally partitioned by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Nurpur vide order dated 07.06.2003 after having visited the spot on two occasions and -4- the same was upheld by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Revenue Appeal No. 09 of 2011 vide its order dated 19.12.2014. The Review Petition No. 05 of 2015 was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 04.12.2015. 6. It is the case of the defendants that the suit land has been partitioned by the revenue Court vide its order dated 07.06.2003 by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nurpur. The said order was affirmed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Government of Himachal Pradesh. The instrument of partition was prepared by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Nurpur and the stamp papers on which the instrument of partition was written were filed by Sh. Harminder Singh proforma defendant No.3 during the pendency of the appeal before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). 7. As per defendants, after effecting of the partition, the status of the suit land has changed and the same has been partitioned by the revenue Court. The defendants refuted all the averments as made in the plaint and denied all the submissions and sought dismissal of the suit as filed by the plaintiffs. 8. The plaintiffs along with the plaint filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction, restraining the -5- respondents from disturbing the settled possession of the plaintiffs and proforma respondent over the suit land. 9. The said application was duly contested by the defendants by raising the objection that the suit land has been finally partitioned by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade in the year 2003 and the said order stands finalized by the Financial Commissioner on 19.12.2014. The defendants categorically stated that there is no question of title involved in the present case and constructed portions have been allotted to the parties who constructed the same and front portion as stated above have been partitioned as per the entitlement and possession of the parties. 10. As per defendants, they had earlier instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the present suit had given their consent to maintain status quo with the hope that after the partition, they will raise construction of their houses but now when the partition proceedings are over, the plaintiffs filed the present suit in order to harass the defendants. 11. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 26.10.2024 dismissed the application as filed by the petitioners /plaintiffs. -6- 12. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs instituted an appeal under Order 43 rule 1 (r) of the CPC against the order as passed by the learned trial Court dated 26.10.2024. The learned Additional District Judge, Nurpur vide judgment dated 23.12.2024 dismissed the appeal as preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 13. Still feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 14. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgment and order as passed by the learned courts below are wrong and erroneous and, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the learned courts below have failed to appreciate the real point of controversy and in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the learned courts below should have passed the order at least to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land during the pendency of the suit. He would submit that after accepting the present petition, the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC deserves to be allowed. -7- 15. On the other hand, learned vice counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment/order as passed by the learned courts below are legal, valid and sustainable. He would submit that the learned courts below have rightly appreciated the point in controversy. Therefore, while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court will not interfere in the judgment/order as passed by the learned courts below. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file. 17. It is the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners that the order of partition as passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nurpur dated 07.06.2003, order passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Nurpur dated 30.07.2005 and thereafter in Appeal No. 203/2006 dated 27.11.2010 and thereafter the order as passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 19.12.2014 and order in Review Petition No. 05 of 2015 dated 4.12.2015 and subsequently order of instrument of partition drawn on the basis of order dated 07.06.2003 affirmed by the collector Fatehpur dated 25.08.2017 are erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. It is the case of the plaintiffs/ petitioners that the procedure, as envisaged under the Act, has not been followed by the revenue authorities as a result of -8- which, the said orders are void-abinitio and deserve to be quashed and set aside and have no binding on their rights. The plaintiffs have primarily based their claim on the basis that the orders as passed by the revenue authorities carry no sanctity in the eyes of law as the same have not been passed strictly in accordance with law. 18. On the other hand, the defendants/respondents have specifically averred and taken a stand that the order of partition as passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nurpur dated 07.06.2003 is legal and valid, which stood upheld by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) vide its order dated 19.12.2014. Further, Review Petition No. 5 of 2015 was also dismissed on 4.12.2015. It is the case of the defendants that after passing of the said orders, the instrument of partition stood drawn and the same stood affirmed by the Collector, Fatehpur vide its order dated 25.8.2017. The defendants/ respondents have taken a stand that there is no illegality and ambiguity in the orders as passed by the revenue authorities and the present proceedings have been initiated just to prolong the matter unnecessarily and to prevent the present respondents/defendants from enjoying the fruits of the partition which was filed in the year 1994. -9- 19. The plaintiffs/petitioners in order to obtain the order of injunction have to pass the tripartite test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. In the present case, it is admitted by the respective parties that the application for partition stood filed in the year 1994. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nurpur passed the order of partition of the suit land on 7.6.2003. Thereafter, the order of the Assistant Collector stood affirmed by the Financial Commissioner on 19.12.2024. The revenue appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Financial Commissioner and the same was dismissed by the said authority. Not only this the review petition bearing No. 05 of 2015, was also instituted and the same was also dismissed on 4.12.2015. 20. The parties are litigating for the partition of the suit land/property for more than 32 years. After culmination of the proceedings before the revenue authorities, the plaintiffs in order to prolong the partition process have instituted the present case by raising various objections. The finalization of the partition proceedings by the Financial Commissioner and drawing of an instrument of partition certainly draw an inference that it is not the plaintiffs rather it is the defendants who have got prima-facie case in their favour. The defendants have balance of convenience in their favour and in case the -10- defendants are restrained from raising the construction or enjoying the suit property, in that event, they shall suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated, in terms of monetary gains. The petitioners cannot be permitted to jeopardize the rights of the defendants by instituting the present suit in order to nullify the partition proceedings which stood finalized by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). 21. As rightly held by the courts below that in case the plaintiffs are of the opinion that certain modalities have not been conducted by the revenue authorities in that event, the same shall be proved by the plaintiffs in accordance with law by leading evidence. The points which have been urged by the petitioners are matter of trial and that have to be proved in accordance with law by leading independent evidence. In the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the plaintiffs are required to show the prima facie case. Perusal of the case file indicates that it is not the plaintiffs rather it is the defendants who are having prima facie case in their favour. Therefore, the concurrent orders as passed by the learned courts below do not suffer from any infirmity and do not call for any interference. 22. As observed earlier, it seems to be an endeavour of the plaintiffs to prolong the proceedings to restrain the defendants to enjoy the fruits of the suit property which stood -11- culminated and crystallized in the partition proceedings. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to harass and jeopardize the rights of the defendants in an uncalled for litigation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment/order as passed by the learned courts below. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its various decisions, has held that the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of Constitution by any means is not appellate in nature for correcting errors in the decisions of the 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 Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to correct errors apparent on the face of the record, much less errors of law. 24. The power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the Courts below function within the limits of their authority or jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, over the last 50 years, it has consistently -12- been observed that the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with findings of fact or by setting aside the judgments of the courts below on merits. 25. Hon’ ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010, titled State of Haryana & others vs. Manoj Kumar, decided on 09.03.2010 has held as follow:- “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 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 -13- 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. 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 reappreciating 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.” -14- 26. To the similar extent, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022, titled as Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, decided on 13.05.2022 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 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.” -15- 27. The Courts below have rightly determined the points in controversy after taking into consideration the material placed on record. There is no error, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the same. 28. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 29. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made herein-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 observations made here- in-above, which are only for the purpose of the instant petition. Records, if any, be sent back henceforth. (Romesh Verma) Judge ____June, 2026. (kck)