1  ( 2026:HHC:26022 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 329 of 2026 Decided on: 30.6.2026 Mahesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus Krishan Kumar & others …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment dated 6.5.2026, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13/14 of 2023. 2. By way of order dated 6.5.2026, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, preferred by petitioner Mahesh Kumar, alongwith Kanta Devi, against the order dated 13.10.2023, passed by the Court 2  ( 2026:HHC:26022 ) of learned Civil Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No. 2/6 of 2023 (Civil Suit No. 2/1 of 2023), titled as, ‘Krishan Kumar versus Mahesh Kumar & others’. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Plaintiff Krishan Kumar has filed the suit for partition of house, situated at village Kot-Khas, P.O. Toba, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P., in land measuring No. 13 biswas, comprised in Khewat No. 3, Khatoni No.3, Khasra No. 128/5, as per Jamabandi for the year 2017-18 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). 5. By way of said suit, the plaintiff has sought partition of ½ share out of the suit land. In addition, he has also sought permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants, from interfering in the peaceful ownership and possession of the house and its premises. 3  ( 2026:HHC:26022 ) 6. The said suit has been filed on the ground that the plaintiff is having ½ share in the suit property and rest of the share belongs to the defendants. It has further been averred that whenever the plaintiff wants to maintain the house, defendants used to create dispute and destroy his mental peace and cause hardship. 6. On the basis of above facts, the plaintiff has sought relief, as claimed in the plaint. 7. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff has also filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, with a prayer to restrain the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land, alienating the same to any stranger, interfering into the peaceful ownership and possession over the suit land. 8. The suit, as well as, the application has been contested by the defendants, by filing written statement, in which, they have taken preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable; plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands; he has suppressed the material facts from the Court; the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter; and the suit is not 4  ( 2026:HHC:26022 ) properly valued, for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. 9. On merits, the suit has been contested on the ground that the suit property is in exclusive possession of the defendants and the house was constructed by the father of defendant No. 1. In addition to this, the defendants have taken the plea of private partition, which according to them, has taken place, during lifetime of defendant No. 1 and plaintiff. 10. The application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has also been contested, on the similar lines. 11. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, has decided the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, vide order dated 13.10.2023, by directing the defendants to maintain status quo, qua ownership and possession of the suit land, till final disposal of the main suit. 12. These findings have been assailed by defendant No. 1 Mahesh and defendant No. 3 Kanta Devi (since deceased), by filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, before the learned First Appellate Court. However, the said 5  ( 2026:HHC:26022 ) appeal has been dismissed, on 6.5.2026, by the learned First Appellate Court. 12. Now, defendant No. 1 Mahesh Kumar is before this Court, by way of present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the ground, that order dated 13.10.2023, passed by the learned trial Court, and upheld by the learned First Appellate Court, is against the law and facts on the file and both the Courts below have miserably failed to appreciate that the Jamabandi can be used as corroborative evidence of possession. 13. The findings of the learned trial Court have further been assailed on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to produce even the photographs of the portion of the house, which is in his possession, whereas, the defendants have specifically pleaded that the electricity consumption meter has been installed in the name of father of the defendants, which according to them, is better evidence of possession, and the same has been ignored. 14. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, has 6  ( 2026:HHC:26022 ) prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside the order, passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned First Appellate Court, by dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 15. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of interference in the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has elaborately been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, “K. Valarmathi & ors. Versus Kumaresan” 2025 INSC 606. Relevant paragraph-9 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the Court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a near total bar to exercise to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.” 16. In addition, in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & anr. versus B. Gurappa Naidu & ors., 2026 INSC 434, the scope of interference under Article 7  ( 2026:HHC:26022 ) 227 of Constitution of India, has again been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph-35 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.” 17. Being guided by the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, now, this Court would proceed further to determine the stand, as taken by the petitioner-defendant No. 1, in the present petition. In the 8  ( 2026:HHC:26022 ) present case, the learned trial Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo, qua the nature and possession of the suit land. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No. 1 could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court as to how the said order can be interfered with by this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where scope of interference is very limited. Here, the plaintiff has asserted his possession, whereas, defendants have also made claim, qua their possession, over the suit land/house. The scope of powers to be exercised under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is to preserve the subject matter of the lis, till the rights of the parties are decided. In the present case, both the parties have been directed to maintain status quo and the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction, after finding three conditions, i.e. balance of convenience, prima-facie case and irreparable loss, in favour of the plaintiff. 19. The findings, so rendered by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned First Appellate Court, 9  ( 2026:HHC:26022 ) do not fall within the definition of ‘perverse findings’. As such, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned order, passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned First Appellate Court. 20. In view of above, the present petition is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) 30.6.2026 Judge Kalpana