2026:HHC:26017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 11 of 2026 Date of decision : 01.07.2026. Sharif Mohammad ...Petitioner. Versus Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition arises out of order as passed by the learned Civil Judge (II), Amb, District Una, H.P., dated 24.10.2025, whereby, application filed by the defendants under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC came to be allowed. 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory, injunction, restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession and impounding of vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. HP-19C-1747 in an arbitrary manner, by engaging hooligans and other unsocial elements, their agents 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- and servants and obstructing the plaintiff to ply the said vehicle. The said vehicle was financed from the defendants on 10.01.2018 for a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- along with interest Rs. 3,50,624/- amounting to Rs. 12,00,624/- for a period of four years. It is the case of the plaintiff that despite paying the installments, the defendants are threatening to take forcible possession and impounding the said vehicle in an arbitrary manner by engaging hooligans and other unsocial elements, their agents and servants and obstructing the plaintiff to ply the said vehicle. The defendants were requested number of times to desist from their illegal act but the defendants denied the request of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed from temporary injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession and impounding of the vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. HP-19C-1747 from the learned trial Court 3. The suit was presented by the plaintiff on 26.11.2020 as per Annexure P-7, which reveals that the said suit was received through electronic mode and was put up on 27.11.2020. As per Annexure P-3, on 28.11.2020, the defendants were not present despite service and thereafter, the case was called in post lunch session but none appeared and -3- they were proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, the case was fixed for further orders on 19.02.2021. 4. The defendants filed an application under Order 9 rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order, as passed against them. Copy of the application has been placed on record. 5. The said application came to be resisted by the petitioner/plaintiff and all the averments as made in the application were refuted and denied. 6. The learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 24.10.2025 allowed the application and the order of ex- parte against the defendants was quashed and set aside and the defendants were permitted to join the proceedings. . 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court by filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order. He submits that the order which has been passed by the learned court is -4- well reasoned order and call for no interference in the present proceedings. 10. Admittedly, in the present case, the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 26.11.2020 and on the very next date i.e. 28.11.2020, the defendants were proceeded against ex-parte on the premise that the defendants stand served. However, none had put in appearance on their behalf. The learned trial Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction by allowing the application. This Court is in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that during the span of three days, the defendants have been ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte, which is uncalled for. 11. This Court does not find any infirmity and illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 1st July, 2026. (kck)