2026:HHC:25116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 209 of 2026 Date of decision: 25.06.2026. Jagdish Raj ...Petitioner. Versus Dola Singh & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi Ms. Bhavinta Kumari and Ms. Niranjana Kumari, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition arises out of the impugned judgment as passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. dated 05.01.2026, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner/defendant came to be dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu dated 21.04.2025 was affirmed, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was ordered to be allowed. 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the present plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit for permanent 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant himself, through his agents, servants and contractors from unlawfully interfering and encroaching upon the land measuring 00-02-46 hectares, comprised in khasra No. 385, khata-khatoni No. 139 min/172 entered in the jamabandi for the year 2018-2019, situated in Mohal Larankelok, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. and in alternative suit for possession, in case during the pendency of the suit, the defendant succeeded to encroach upon any portion of the suit land. 3. It has been averred in the suit that the suit land is in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs and the defendant is stranger to the same and has got no right, title and interest. Further, it has been stated that the defendant is owner in possession of the land comprised in khasra No. 403 and there is a road between the suit land and land of the defendant, which leads to Larankelo to Siyunidhar village. The defendant is a high headed and strong person and in order to construct a structure over the suit land, he has collected the construction material i.e. stones etc. preparing to dig the land in order to raise construction despite the objection raised by the plaintiffs. Therefore, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering and encroaching upon the suit land in any manner -3- and in alternative, decree for possession was sought from the learned trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs along with the plaint filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction, restraining the respondent from interfering and encroaching upon over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. 5. The suit, as preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents was contested by the petitioner/defendant by filing a comprehensive written statement. Preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action and esttopel etc. were raised by the defendant/petitioner. On merits, it was averred that the suit land stood purchased by the father and uncle of the defendant long back in the year 1958 and after the purchase the defendant is in possession of the land. It has also been stated that the father of the defendant brought the suit land under cultivation and had planted fruit plants over the same. After the death of father of the defendant, he is in possession of the suit land and all the averments as made by the plaintiffs in the suit have been refuted and denied. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit as filed by the plaintiffs. -4- 6. The defendant contested the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and prayed for dismissal of the application. 7. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 21.04.2025 allowed the application as filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents by restraining the petitioner/defendant from causing any sort of unlawful interference over the suit land and from raising any construction thereon, till the final disposal of the main suit. 8. The order as passed by the learned trial Court came to be assailed before the learned District Judge, Kullu on 20.05.2025. The learned District Judge, Kullu vide its impugned judgment dated 05.01.2026 affirmed the findings as returned by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal as filed by the petitioner/defendant. 9. Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/defendant has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgment and order as passed by the learned courts below are wrong and erroneous and liable to -5- be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the learned courts below have erred by granting injunction to the plaintiffs/respondents. Further, he submits that the plaintiffs have failed to make out a case for grant of injunction. Therefore, after accepting the present petition, the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC deserves to be rejected. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned judgment/order. He would submit that while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not interfere with the well reasoned judgment/order as passed by the learned courts below. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file. 13. The respondents/plaintiffs have instituted the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative for possession on the ground that they are in exclusive ownership and possession of khasra No. 403 and the defendant is a head strong person and he is trying to construct a structure over the suit land and for that he has collected the construction material. In order to substantiate their case, the plaintiffs have -6- placed on record copy of jamabandi for the year 2018-2019, which categorically shows the plaintiffs namely Ved Ram, Hem Chand, Bhadar Singh, Budh Ram and Ses Ram to be the owners in possession of suit land bearing khasra No. 385. In the said revenue record, the present petitioner/defendant has not been shown in any capacity. In order to obtain the injunction, the plaintiffs are required to pass the triplicate tests of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The revenue record as placed on record by the plaintiffs, prima-facie shows that the plaintiffs/respondents are owners in possession over the suit property. 14. The defence which was raised by the defendant with respect to the purchase of suit land way back in the year 1958 has not been substantiated, as rightly adjudicated by the learned First Appellate Court that the sale deed in Urdu, on which, the petitioner is placing reliance and hindi translation of the same has been placed on record, is pertaining to khasra Nos.1893, 1899, 1915 and 1898. No material has been placed on record to corroborate and substantiate that suit land bearing khasra No. 385 is part and parcel of aforesaid khasra numbers. The petitioner has failed to identify and correspond -7- the suit land to the sale deed which is alleged to have taken place inter-se the parties. 15. Even otherwise, from the perusal of the written statement, which has been filed by the defendant, the defendant has raised the plea of title on the basis of sale which took place in the year 1958 and further plea of adverse possession has also been raised in the written statement. A contradictory plea has been raised by the defendant as has rightly been pointed out by the learned courts below that the defendant is not sure that in what capacity he is setting up the title over the suit land. The defendant has failed to link and correspond the alleged sale deed of year 1958 to the land bearing khasra No. 385. Therefore, no case is made out by the defendant for any kind of interference in the well reasoned judgment/order as passed by the learned courts below. 16. 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 -8- 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. 17. The power under Article 227 is limited to see 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 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. 18. 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 -9- 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. 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. -10- 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.” 19. 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 -11- 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 rigor of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 20. 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. 21. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 22. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made herein-above shall not be taken as an expression of -12- 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 25th June, 2026. (kck)