IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12438/2026 Decided on: 24.07.2026 Kashmir Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to provide immediate and adequate police protection to the petitioner for construction of the retaining/safety wall over land comprised in Khasra No. 379 in terms of the orders dated 21.06.2025 and 19.07.2025. (ii) That direct respondent No.1 to 3 to ensure that respondent Nos.4 to 7 do not interfere in any manner whatsoever in the construction work.” 2. It appears that both the reliefs have already been granted to the petitioner by the learned Civil Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi. The petitioner has preferred Civil Suit No. 65/2025 (Kashmir Singh vs. Bidhi Chand & Ors.) before the said learned Court, wherein an ad- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 interim injunction was granted to the petitioner on 21.06.2025 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, whereby the defendants therein (respondents No. 4 to 7 herein) were restrained from interfering with and intermeddling in the construction of the safety wall over the suit land. In a further application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, police assistance was also provided by the learned Court below vide order dated 19.07.2025. The petitioner alleges non-implementation of the aforesaid orders. If that is the case, it is for the petitioner to seek the appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, before the learned Court concerned. When the petitioner has already invoked the civil jurisdiction and has also been granted an ad-interim injunction as well as police protection, it is for him to seek implementation of the aforesaid orders in accordance with law. Such implementation, in the given facts and circumstances, cannot be permitted in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With above observations, the instant petition to stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th July, 2026 (rohit)