2026:HHC:26615 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.152 of 2025 Decided on: 02.07.2026 Rattan Chand ...Petitioner Versus Mast Ram and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Mohd. Aamir, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate for respondent No.1. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has assailed the order dated 20.09.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. in CMA No.515 of 2025 in Civil Suit No.211 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff for providing police assistance has been allowed and the following order has been passed. “29. In view of the same, and in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, the application is allowed in part, subject to the following conditions: (1) The applicant/plaintiff shall be entitled to carry out repair and maintenance only of the existing flour mill structure, strictly in terms of the interim order 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:26615 dated 26.08.2025. No fresh or new construction, addition or alteration shall be undertaken. (ii) The applicant shall file in Court, within two working days, a sworn undertaking and list of the specific repair works to be carried out, along with identity details of the contractor/workmen. A copy shall also be furnished to the concerned SHO. (iii) The applicant shall give at least 48 hours' prior written notice to the SHO, Police Station Barsar, specifying the date, time and nature of repair works. (iv) On receipt of such notice, the SHO, Police Station Barsar, shall provide limited police assistance reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with the interim order and to prevent obstruction, breach of peace or injury to persons and property. The police shall act in a neutral manner and shall not deliver possession of land or permit any construction beyond repair. The SHO concerned is also directed to file a report regarding the spot after the assistance has been provided. (v) The respondents/defendants are restrained from interfering in the repair works undertaken in accordance with this order. They shall, however, be at liberty to remain present at the site for the limited purpose of ensuring that no fresh construction is being carried out. 30. Compliance be made accordingly thereafter, necessary reference be issued to SHO, P.S. Barsar in following terms and his report be called or next date for hearing. Application stands accordingly disposed of. Be tagged.” 2. The petitioner and proforma-respondents are the defendants before the learned trial Court. The respondent /plaintiff has instituted a suit against the petitioner and proforma-respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from demolishing, 3 2026:HHC:26615 dispossessing or interfering in any manner in the peaceful and lawful repair and maintenance of the plaintiff’s flour mill structure, situated over land comprised in Khata No.766, Khatauni No.814, Khasra Nos.3240 and 3241 measuring 00- 08-40 hectares, situated in village & P.O. Barsar, Tappa Panjgran, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. Along-with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) was filed by the respondent-plaintiff and the learned trial Court passed an ad-interim order on 26.08.2025 to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff is running his business since 1991 and is in continuous possession of the suit land and due to heavy rainfall, structure existed on the spot had collapsed and he intends to repair the same and the petitioner and proforma-respondents are restrained from causing any interference in the repair work being carried out by the respondent/plaintiff on the spot, till further orders. Notices were issued to the petitioner and proforma-respondents returnable for 4th September, 2025. 3. Since the petitioner and proforma-respondents were causing interference, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 CPC for providing police assistance to enforce the order dated 26.08.2025, passed 4 2026:HHC:26615 by the learned Trial Court in CMA No.515 of 2025 and the learned trial Court after considering the matter, passed an order on 20.09.2025, whereby certain directions came to be issued by allowing the application, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid challenge to the said order on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not adverted to the reply filed by them to the application and passed an order in an illegal manner, which amounts to material irregularity. It has further been averred that the petitioner and proforma-respondents are co-owners of the suit property and the respondent-plaintiff is not the owner of the suit land, thus, he has no right over the same. Further the respondent/plaintiff has also failed to provide any licence qua this property. The learned trial Court has erred in law while allowing the application. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff has supported the order passed by the learned trial Court and has prayed that since no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court while allowing the application, no interference is called for by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. 5 2026:HHC:26615 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 7. When the matter was taken up by this Court on 25.09.2025, the order passed by the learned trial Court in the application for providing police assistance was ordered to be stayed. On the same day, the learned trial Court had also passed an order to stay the earlier order passed by it on 20.09.2025, since the notices in the application were issued to Ajay Kumar and Ram Ashri i.e. family members of previous owners, till the next date of hearing. 8. The aforementioned order for staying the earlier order dated 20.09.2025 came to be passed on an application filed by the petitioner and proforma-respondents No.2 and 3 on 25.09.2025. The order dated 25.09.2025 also reveals that an undertaking was given by the respondent/plaintiff on 22.09.2025. Since the learned trial Court had been pleased to stay the order dated 20.09.2025 passed by it, which is under challenge, the petition instituted by the petitioner has virtually been rendered infructuous. 9. Learned counsel for the parties have apprised the Court that the petitioner and proforma-respondents have assailed the order passed by the learned trial Court 6 2026:HHC:26615 on application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, HP, which appeal is still pending. Since the petitioner and proforma-respondents have already challenged the order, sought to be implemented by way of police help, before the competent Court of law and further the learned trial Court has stayed the operation of order dated 20.09.2025, to put the matter at rest, the learned District Judge, Hamirpur is directed to decide the same within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. Keeping in view the above, the order dated 20.09.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, to provide police assistance is quashed and set aside, with further direction to it to decide the application afresh only after the order passed by the learned District Judge. 11. Resultantly, the present revision petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, HP, on 23rd July, 2026. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 2nd July, 2026 Judge (naveen)