1 2026:HHC:25426 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA   No. :  615 of 2009 Reserved  on   :   24.06.2026 Decided on       :   30.06.2026 Uploaded on     :    30.06.2026 Tula Ram Jain …Appellant Versus Onkar Chand and Another …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ____________________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents      : None for respondent No.1. Mr.   H.S.   Rawat,   Additional Advocate   General   with   Mr.   Rohit Sharma   and   Ms.   Avni   Kochhar Mehta, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge Appellant­Tula Ram Jain has filed the present appeal,   under   Section   100   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2009, passed by the learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal No.40­S/13 of 2008/06, titled as Tula Ram Jain versus Onkar Chand & Another. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:25426 2. By   way   of   judgment   and   decree   dated 30.09.2009, the learned First Appellate Court has   dismissed the appeal preferred by appellant Tula Ram Jain against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court’), in Civil Suit No.107/1 of 1999, titled as Tula Ram Jain versus Onkar Chand & Another, by granting the following relief:­ “Thus,   in   view   of   the   above   discussion   the plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour for the relief of the injunction.   The trial Court has  wrongly  decreed  the  suit  partly granting permanent   prohibitory   injunction.     Therefore, appeal, as well as the suit of the plaintiff are dismissed with costs throughout.   The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.   The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith and the file of this Court be consigned to the record room.” 3. By   way   of   judgment   and   decree   dated 31.07.2006, the learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit, by granting the following relief:­ “  In   view   of   my   abovesaid   discussion   and findings,   the   suit   succeeds   in   part   and accordingly decreed partly with costs.  A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No./1­restraining him from causing any kind of interference in the suit land and set backs area and   wall   comprising   in   Khata   Khatoni No.30/35,   Khasra   No.696.   679/351/1 measuring   4   biswas   situated   at   Mohal 3 2026:HHC:25426 Chakdyal Harbast No.352, Tehsil and District Shimla,   H.P.     However,   suit   qua   mandatory injunction   fails.     Decree   sheet   be   prepared accordingly and file after needful be consigned to the records.” 4. For   the   sake   of   convenience,   parties   to   the present appeal, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 5. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:­ 5.1. Plaintiff   Tula   Ram   Jain   has   filed   a   suit   for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, against the defendants on the ground   that   he   is   owner­in­possession   of   single   storeyed building,   constructed   over   the   land   bearing   Khata   Khatauni No.30/35, Khasra No.696/ 679/351/1, as per the Tatima of the spot, measuring 4 biswas, including the vacant land/set backs, left   by   the   plaintiff,   situated   at   Mohal   Chhakdayal,   Hadbast No.353, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). 5.2. The plaintiff, while constructing the building, left the proper set backs, as per the interim development plan (IDP)   of   Shimla,   prescribed   by   defendant   No.2,   and   a   ‘No 4 2026:HHC:25426 Objection   Certificate’   has   also   been   issued   in   favour   of   the plaintiff, on 24.01.1996. 5.3. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   plaintiff   that adjoining   to   the   suit   land,   defendant   No.1,   has   started construction work, over the plot, consisting of Khasra No.696/ 679/351/2/1, as per  Tatima  of the spot. However, defendant No.1, while constructing the building, did not leave proper set backs, as per the norms of the IDP and further encroached upon the suit land and set backs left by the plaintiff, by extending projection of lentil and beams over the land of the plaintiff. This has been done by defendant No.1, despite request made by the plaintiff. 5.4. On the basis of the above stand, the plaintiff has   sought   the   decree   of   Permanent   Prohibitory   Injunction, restraining the defendant from damaging and encroaching upon the suit land and also sought a decree for mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to remove the encroachment or projections made over the suit land/set backs of the plaintiff and to provide proper set back, as per the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. 6. When,   put   to   notice,   the   suit   has   been contested by defendant No.2. Defendant No.1, despite repeated 5 2026:HHC:25426 opportunities granted to file the written statement,   could not file the same. As such, his defence was ordered to be struck off, by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.08.2001. 6.1. Defendant No.2, has filed its written statement by   taking   preliminary   objections   that   the   suit   is   not maintainable; the suit is bad for non joinder of parties; and no notice,   under   Section   80   CPC,   has   been   served   upon   the defendant   by   the   plaintiff,   as   such,   the   suit   is   liable   to   be dismissed, on this score. 6.2. On merits, the factual position, as asserted, in the plaint, has been contested, by pleading that the plaintiff has not carried out the construction work after obtaining permission from the defendant department. Defendant No.1, has started construction work on the land bearing Khasra No.679/851/2/1, for   which,   sanction   was   accorded,   by   the   department,   on 15.10.1998. 6.3. It   is   the   further   case   of   defendant   No.2   that during investigation, when it was found that defendant No.1 has raised projections of RCC Slab over the set backs,  notice, under Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, was issued, however,  the  encroachment  could  not   be  ascertained,  in  the 6 2026:HHC:25426 absence of demarcation report, which is to be provided, by the revenue authorities. 6.4. According to defendant No.2, action has been taken   for   the   chhajja/projection   on   the   set   backs   and   ‘No Objection Certificate’ for water connection has also not been issued to defendant No.1, for encroachment on set backs, being part of the suit land. 6.5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the suit. 7. Plaintiff   has   filed   replication,   denying   the preliminary   submissions,   as   well   as,   contents   of   the   written statement, by virtue of which, the suit has been contested and reasserted that of the plaint. 8. From   the   pleadings   of   the   parties,   following issues were framed, by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 27.05.2004: 1) Whether   the   defendant   No.1   has   encroached upon the land of the plaintiff as alleged and has also   not   left   set   back   if   so   to   what   effect? OPP 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Permanent   Prohibitory   Injunction   and   in   the alternative of Mandatory Injunction as prayed for? OPD 3) Whether   the   suit   is   not   maintainable   in   the present form? OPD 7 2026:HHC:25426 4) Whether   the   suit   is   bad   for   non   joinder   of necessary parties as alleged? OPD 5) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of CPC as alleged? OPD 6) Relief. 9. Thereafter,   parties   to   the   lis   were   directed   to adduce evidence. 10. After closure of the evidence, the learned trial Court, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, has partly decreed the suit, as referred to above. 11. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred the appeal, under Section 96 of   the   CPC,   before   the   learned   First   Appellate   Court. The learned First Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, has also dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 12. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred, before this Court which   has   been   admitted   on   19.05.2011,   on   the   following substantial questions of law:­ 1. Whether the learned lower appellate court has erred   in   reversing   the   findings   and   relief   of permanent probability injunction in the appeal of the appellant without there being any cross­ appeal   or   cross­objections   on   the   part   of respondent No.1? 8 2026:HHC:25426 2. Whether the learned lower appellate court has erred in not granting mandatory injunction to the appellant? SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW No.1 13. Admittedly, in the present case, defendants have not   preferred   the   appeal,   against   the   judgment   and   decree, passed by the learned trial Court on 31.07.2006, by virtue of which, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed, by granting the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, against defendant No.1, restraining him from causing any kind of interference in the suit land and the set back area. 14. Interestingly, the learned First Appellate Court, while   dismissing   the   appeal,   has   also   set   aside   the   relief   of permanent prohibitory injunction, which has been granted to the plaintiff, by the learned trial Court. The relief, which has not been assailed by defendant No.1, attains finality and in the absence of any appeal/cross­objection, the said relief, cannot be interfered with, by the learned First Appellate Court. 15. No   doubt,   the   relief   of   mandatory   injunction has not been granted to the plaintiff, by the learned trial Court, for which, he has filed the appeal, under Section 96 of the CPC, before the learned First Appellate Court and the learned First Appellate Court was in its full competence to decide the said 9 2026:HHC:25426 appeal, on the basis of the material available before it. However, the learned First Appellate Court has no power to dismiss the suit, by setting aside the relief, which has been granted to him by the learned trial Court, which has not even been assailed by defendant No.1,  who  could  be  the  best  person  to  assail  the same, being aggrieved person. 16. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, by virtue of which, the said relief has been granted to   the   plaintiff,   has   not   been   assailed,   by   either   of   the defendants, nor, have they bothered to file the cross­objections, before the learned First Appellate Court. By filing first appeal, the plaintiff has assailed the judgment of learned trial Court only   to   the   extent   that   the   mandatory   injunction   has   been declined to him. In the absence of appeal/cross appeal, learned First   Appellate   Court   was   not   competent   to   tinker   with   the judgment and decree of learned trial Court, by virtue of which, the relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction was granted to the plaintiff and which has attained finality, being not challenged by the aggrieved party i.e. defendants. 17. In view of the above discussion, the substantial question of law No.1, is decided in favour of the plaintiff. 10 2026:HHC:25426 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW NO.2: 18. As per the arguments of the learned counsel for the   appellant/plaintiff,   the   learned   trial   Court   has   wrongly declined  the   relief   of  mandatory  injunction  to  him,  whereas, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ plaintiff, it has been proved on record that defendant No.1 has encroached upon the set backs, left by the plaintiff. 19. The learned trial Court has declined the said relief   on   the   ground   that   the   plaintiff   has   not   offered   any explanation for not getting the demarcation of the suit land, as, in order to grant the mandatory injunction, evidence should be there   to   demonstrate   as   to     how   much   area   has   been encroached upon, by defendant No.1.   In the absence of any material   on   record,   the   relief   of   mandatory   injunction,   has rightly   been   declined,   by   the   learned   trial   Court.     The substantial question of law No.2, is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 20. In view of the above discussion,  the judgment and   decree   passed   by   the   learned   First   Appellate   Court,   by virtue   of   which,   the   suit   of   the   plaintiff   was   ordered   to   be dismissed, does not sustain, in the judicial scrutiny, by this Court.  Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed; the judgment 11 2026:HHC:25426 and decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court   is   revived   and   upheld.     Decree   sheet   be   prepared accordingly. 21. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) Judge June 30, 2026(ps)