2026:HHC:29374 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 476/2025 Decided on: 14.07.2026 Ajay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Virender Kumar &ors. …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kuldeep Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anmol Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Surinder Chauhan, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The instant petition arises out of order, dated 08.07.2025, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Theog, Shimla, whereby an application filed by the petitioner/plainitff under Section 151 of CPC for grant of police assistance, came to be dismissed. 2 The facts, as emerge in the instant case, are thatthe plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the basis of easementary rights restraining the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 defendants/respondents from raising construction just touching house of the plainitff and to remove the pillars and walls, situated over the land comprised in Khasra No. 73 and keep the setback in their building, situated at Up-Mohal Shalli Shilli Nali, P.C. Rahighat, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. It has been averred in the plaint that the suit property is a building existing over Khasra No. 73,where Branch of State Bank of India is located. In the month of October, 2024, the defendants/respondents started construction work of the building over their own land and uprooted retaining wall, which was constructed by the government authorities. However, whileuprooting the aforesaid wall and digging deep beneath the suit property illegally and unlawfully, cracks developed in the suit property. Though the plaintiff requested the defendants not to carry out unscientific excavation on the spot as they did not leave any set back towards the suit property, but all in vain. Hence, the suit, as aforesaid. 3 Along with the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking ad- interim injunction. 4 The learned trial Court on 28.05.2025 passed an ad interim injunction order restraining the defendants/respondents from raising any construction, placing slabs or lintels, or 3 undertaking any excavation or structural work, touching or adjoining the building of the plaintiff/petitioner. 5 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, dated 28.05.2025, whereby an ad-interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and against the defendants/respondents, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the learned trial Court seeking therein police assistance against the defendants as they have not complied with the order dated 28.05.2025. 6 Said application came to be resisted by the defendants/respondents and all the allegations, as levelled in the application, came to be refuted and denied. 7 The learned trial court vide its order dated 08.07.2025 dismissed the application under Section 151 CPC, as filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. 8 Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order, dated 08.07.2025 by filing petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9 It is contended by Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kuldeep Chandel, Advocate, for the plaintiff/petitioner, that the impugned order, as passed by the learned trial court, is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the learned trial court has not 4 appreciated the point in controversy and has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for police assistance. 10 On the other hand, Mr. Anmol Chauhan, Advocate, appearing for the defendants/respondents, has defended the impugned order. He has stated that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order as passed by the learned trial court, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. He hassubmitted that this Court,while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, will not interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned trial court. 11 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record. 12 Admittedly, in the present case, the plaintiff/petitioner along with suit filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which came up for consideration before the learned trial Court on 28.05.2025, when the defendants/respondents were injuncted from raising any construction, placing slabs or lintels, or undertaking any excavation or structural work, touching or adjoining the building of the plaintiff/petitioner. 13 Grievance of the plaintiff/petitioner is that despite passing of ad interim injunction order, dated 28.05.2025, the 5 defendants/respondents are raising construction in violation of the Court order, therefore, in order to uphold majesty of the Court order, the police is required to be directed to register the case against the defendants/respondents restraining them from doing any construction or putting the slab. 14 It is informed at the Bar that the construction of the lintel in question is complete. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, in the instant application no relief can be granted to the plaintiff/petitioner. As rightly held by the learned trial court that the defendants/respondents have already put a lintel/slab, therefore, the relief as is being sought from this Court has to be determined and adjudicated in the main suit by leading independent evidence to this effect. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or jurisdictional error inthe impugned order. 15 Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, it is made clear that in case the plaintiff/petitioner intends to prove allegations of disobedience and defiance, as alleged to have been committed by the defendants/respondents, he shall have right to place on record material in the main suit as well as application, which has 6 been filed by him, under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, if need arises in accordance with law. 16 It is contended by learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner may be granted liberty to institute the application for the grant of police assistance in an application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, if need arises. It is ordered that in the event of filing of any application, the same shall be dealt strictly in accordance with law. 17 Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 18 Any expression of opinion, hereinabove, shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall be deemed to have been made only for the purpose of disposal of instant petition. (Romesh Verma) 14th July, 2026 Judge (pankaj)