2026:HHC:23609 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 226 of 2026 Date of decision : 19.06.2026. Ramesh & others ...Petitioners. Versus Lachhu ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajit Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 16.04.2026, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff came to be allowed and the order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur dated 03.04.2024 was set aside. 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from digging, cutting trees, uprooting the boundary polls, removing stacked boulder stones, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- making any type of interference in the land comprised in khata khatoni No. 364/410, khasra No. 1743/239, 1601/848, 850, 877, 878, 880, 881, kitta 7, total measuring 24-08-00 bighas, situated at Mauza Sunhani, Pargana Sunhani, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are strangers to the suit land and on 02.04.2023, they entered into the suit land and uprooted the fencing poles and tried to remove stacked boulder stones and started digging and cutting on the same. The plaintiff tried to stop the illegal act of the defendants but they threatened the plaintiff of dire consequences. The defendants threatened to construct a road through the suit land without the consent of the plaintiff. Therefore, decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants was sought before the learned trial court. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants by raising various preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, locus-standi etc. On merits of the case, it has been averred that the plaintiff tried to interfere in the existing road Sunhani Sheetla Mata Mandir Dohra to Harijan Basti Pambera constructed by the Department of HPPWD and local Gram Panchayat with the assistance of local people. Further, it has -3- been stated that in fact the above mentioned road has been constructed in the government land and the land of the villagers with the consent of the land owners and some part of the road passes through the small portion of suit land and plaintiff is trying to block the above road in an illegal manner. The defendants denied all the averments as made in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The plaintiff alongwith plaint also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying ad- interim injunction directing the respondents, their agents, servants and family members from making any interference, digging, cutting, uprooting fencing poles, removing stacked boulder stones, changing nature of the suit land during the pendency of the suit. 6. The said application came to be contested by the defendants whereby, it was reiterated that the applicant is trying to interfere in the existing road which leads to Sunhani Sheetla Mata Mandir Dohra to Harijan Basti Pambera constructed by the Department of HPPWD and local Gram Panchayat with the assistance of local people. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the interim application. -4- 7. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 03.04.2024 dismissed the application, as preferred by the plaintiff on 03.04.2023. 8. Feeling dissatisfied the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Court Learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., on 02.05.2024. The learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 16.04.2026 accepted the appeal as preferred by the plaintiff and allowed the application under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants have instituted the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned judgment as passed by the learned First Appellate Court is erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set aside. He would submit that the learned First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the material as placed on record and has wrongly reversed the well reasoned order as passed by the learned trial Court. He further submits that while upsetting the findings of learned trial Court, the learned First Appellate Court has not recorded reasons to do so. -5- He would further submit that after accepting the present petition, the application of the plaintiff/respondent be rejected. 11. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned judgment as passed by the learned First Appellate Court and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity and the petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file. 13. Before touching the merits of the case, it will be pertinent to mention here that the learned trial Court has primarily dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff by holding that the defendants/non-applicants had produced on record report of Patwari and Tehsildar wherein it is shown that Sunhani Sheetla Mata Mandir Dohra to Harijan Basti Pambera was constructed by the Department of HPPWD and local Gram Panchayat with the assistance of local people and it is for the benefit of local inhabitants including the applicant. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that while relying upon the said report, learned trial Court has dismissed the application as filed by the plaintiff. He further submits that the learned First Appellate Court ought to have taken into consideration the said material aspect as taken into -6- consideration by the learned trial Court and by not doing so and by upsetting the well reasoned order, the learned First Appellate Court has erred while doing so. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded this aspect of the matter whereby the observations as made by the trial Court has not been touched or dealt by the First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff. In the absence of any findings qua the points determined by the trial Court, the First Appellate Court has committed an error which is contrary to the exposition of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department vs. Shukla, (2010) 4 SCC 785, wherein it was held as under:- “24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dis- satisfaction and gives entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever precise they may be. 30. In light of the judgments referred to and relied upon by the parties including the judgment of this Court, it is true that requirement of stating reasons for judicial orders necessarily -7- does not mean a very detailed or lengthy order, but there should be some reasoning recorded by the Court for declining or granting relief to the petitioner. The purpose, as already noticed, is to make the litigant aware of the reasons for which the relief is declined as well as to help the higher Court in assessing the correctness of the view taken by the High Court while disposing off a matter. May be, while dealing with the matter at the admission stage even recording of short listening dealing with the merit of the contentions raised before the High Court may suffice, in contrast, a detailed judgment while matter is being disposed off after final hearing, but in both events, in our view, it is imperative for the High Court to record its own reasoning however short it might be.” 15. To the similar effect is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maya Devi (Dead) through LRs vs. Raj Kumari Batra (Dead) through LRs (2010) 9 SCC 486, wherein it was held as under:- “22. The juristic basis underlying the requirement that Courts and indeed all such authorities, as exercise the power to determine the rights and obligations of individuals must give reasons in support of their orders has been examined in a long line of decisions rendered by this Court. In Hindustan Times Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 1998 (2) SCC 242 the need to give reasons has been held to arise out of the need to minimize chances of arbitrariness and induce clarity. 28. It is in the light of the above pronouncements unnecessary to say anything beyond what has been so eloquently said in support of the need to give reasons for orders made by Courts and statutory or other authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions. All that we may mention is that in a system governed by the rule of law, -8- there is nothing like absolute or unbridled power exercisable at the whims and fancies of the repository of such power. There is nothing like a power without any limits or constraints. That is so even when a Court or other authority may be vested with wide discretionary power, for even discretion has to be exercised only along well recognized and sound juristic principles with a view to promoting fairness, inducing transparency and aiding equity.” 16. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Appellate Court has erred by not discussing and appreciating the said report of Patwari and Tehsildar. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case and rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment as passed by the learned Appellate Court on 16.04.2026 is quashed and set aside by restoring the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2026 to its original number with direction to decide the said appeal afresh strictly in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the respective parties to prove their case. 17. The learned counsel for the parties undertake to remain present before the learned First Appellate Court on 26.06.2026. 18. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. -9- 19. 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. (Romesh Verma) Judge 19th June, 2026. (kck)