2026:HHC:25160 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 172/2022 Decided on: 18.06.2026 Sarwari …..Petitioner Versus Dasondan …Respondent ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice RomeshVerma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The instant petition arises out of order dated 30.04.2022, as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P., whereby an application filed by the plaintiff for enforcement of the order dated 14.03.2022 has been allowed. 2 The facts, as emerge in the instant case, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and proforma defendant are co-owners in possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No.430 measuring 4- 7 Bighas, situated in mauza Missarwalla, Tehsil Paonta Sahib on 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the basis of succession of late Sh. Sadiq and mutation No. 1679, dated 29.10.2005 is illegal and void having no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and proforma defendant with consequential relief of possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that late Sadiq, father of the plaintiff and grandfather of defendant and proforma defendant was owner in possession of the suit land. The suit land is recorded in jamabandi for the year 2008-09 as Khata Khatauni No. 264/370 Khasra No. 430, corresponding to Khata Khatauni No. 306/412, Khasra No. 430. Sadiq had only legal heirs i.e. predecessor-in-interest of defendants and proforma defendant and the plaintiff. The will in favour of defendant No.1 alone is prima facie invalid and illegal for the simple reason that a muslim person cannot execute a will. Hence, the suit, as aforesaid, was filed. 3 The original defendant, namely Parvez Khan, contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein all the allegations and averments as contained in the plaint, were refuted and denied. 4 The plaintiff along with plaint filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of interim injunction. 5 The learned trial court vide its order dated 14.03.2022 directed the parties to maintain status quo qua 3 nature and possession of the suit land till the next date of hearing. i.e. 27.05.2022. 6 The plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 CPC for enforcement of order of injunction as passed by the learned trial court, wherein it was averred that despite knowledge of interim order dated 14.03.2022, the defendant Parvez Khan sold the suit land to the respondent vide sale deed bearing No. 113/2022, dated 16.03.2022. The respondent/present petitioner was also well aware about injunction order. After purchasing the suit land, the petitioner cut the wheat crop forcibly and illegally, which was sown by the present respondent. Therefore, it was prayed that since the petitioner is a headstrong lady, therefore, necessary direction be issued to the police Station Majra to provide police help for proper implementation of the injunction order. 7 The said application was duly contested by the petitioner by filing reply, wherein various objections qua maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts, estoppel etc. were raised. It was averred that the respondent has not disclosed material facts in the application with respect to filing of various suits inter se the parties. It was further averred that since the injunction order was not passed against her, therefore, application is not maintainable. 4 8 Learned trial court vide order dated 30.04.2022 allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff directing concerned SHO to restrain the petitioner from changing nature of suit land as ordered vide order dated 14.03.2022. 9 Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 30.04.2022, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. 10 Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that since the petitioner is not a party to the original suit, therefore, neither injunction order which has been passed by the learned trial court on 14.03.2022 is applicable to her nor instant application, which has been filed by concealing material facts, whereby various civil suits are pending inter se the parties, is maintainable. 11 On the other hand, Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has defended the impugned order. He has contended that the learned trial court after hearing counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has rightly passed the interim injunction order, whereby the defendants were restrained from interfering and changing the nature of the suit land. He has submitted that in order to defeat rights of the plaintiff, just after three days of interim injunction order, suit land was sold by the original defendant to the present 5 petitioner. He has further submitted that in order to defeat rights of the respondent/plaintiff said alienation has been done, therefore, in order to uphold majesty of the Court order, learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned order. 12 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record. 13 Admittedly, the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration against the defendant, Parvez Khan, and proforma defendant on 27.7.2011. In the said suit, decree for declaration has been sought to the effect that the plaintiff, defendant and proforma defendant are co-owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of succession of late Sh. Sadiq and the mutation No. 1679, dated 29.10.2005 is illegal and void having no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and proforma defendants with consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and from alienating the same by way of sale, mortgage or in any other manner during the pendency of the suit. 14 Learned trial court vide its order dated 14.03.2022 by means of interim injunction directed the parties to maintain status qua qua the suit property. Admittedly, during the pendency of the suit, after passing of the injunction order, i.e. 6 after three days, defendant Parvez Khan, alienated the suit property in favour of the present petitioner. 15 The contention as being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not bound by the injunction order does not hold good since alienation has taken place during the pendency of the suit, therefore, principle of lis pendens shall be applicable in the present case. 16 As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that in teeth of interim order, which has been passed by the learned trial court, none of the parties can be permitted to violate or flout the orders. It has further been submitted that the said interim order stand confirmed by the learned trial court. Neither the order of injunction has been assailed in the competent court of law nor application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the said order has been filed till date. 17 The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in its various decisions has held that majesty of the Court orders has to be upheld in its letter and spirit. 18 In the present case, once order of status quo has been passed by the learned trial court, then in all eventualities, suit land has to be protected during the pendency of the suit. None of the parties can be permitted to violate or flout the Court order 7 or else purpose of passing of the injunction order shall be defeated. The petitioner has stepped into shoes of defendant by purchasing the suit land during the pendency of the suit, therefore, it cannot be said that she is not governed by the order of injunction as passed by the learned trial court. 19 As far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of pendency of various civil suits inter se the parties before the learned trial court, no relief can be granted to the respondent/plaintiff, it would be noticed that whether various civil suits have been filed and what would be the effect of those civil suits pending inter se the parties shall be determined by the learned trial court by taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence of the respective parties, but as far as adjudication of the present proceedings are concerned, this Court shall adjudicate and determine whether the application, which was filed by the respondent, for enforcement of the injunction order deserves to be allowed or not. 20 As observed above, once the stay order has been passed by the learned trial court, then it has to be implemented in its letter and spirit and the petitioner cannot be permitted to flout the Court order during the pendency of the suit, therefore, 8 in the considered opinion of this court, there is no infirmity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 21 In view of aforesaid discussion, 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. (Romesh Verma) 18th June, 2026 Judge (pankaj)