2026:HHC:31931 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 396/2026 Decided on: 29.07.2026 Veena & others …..Petitioners Versus Manohar Lal …Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, Advocate Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The instant petition arises out of order, dated 22.7.2026, as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.II, Amb, District Una, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Section 151 of CPC seeking police assistance against the defendants/petitioners came to be allowed. 2 Facts, as emerge in the present case, are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit before the learned trial court for mandatory injunction directing the defendants/petitioners to repair the shop including damaged slate posh roof being part 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 and parcel of the building premises, as exist over land measuring 935-25 Berg Decimeters, comprised in Khewat No. 303 min, Khatauni No. 446 min, Khasra No. 1853, situated at Up Mahal Dev Nagar, Gagret, Sub Tehsil Gagret at Kaloh, District Una, H.P. and to make the premises safe and usable for business purposes. 3 The suit has been resisted by the defendants by filing written statement, wherein all the averments as made in the plaint were refuted. 4 The plaintiff/respondent along with plaint filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, in which ad interim order was passed by the learned trial Court on 4.6.2026, whereby the petitioners were restrained from dismantling or interfering or forcibly evicting the plaintiff/respondent from the suit property till the filing of the reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 5 Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for grant of police assistance against the defendants/petitioners for enforcement of the order dated 4.6.2026. 6 The defendants/petitioners filed reply to the said application by raising all the objections and denying the averments as made in the application, however the learned trial 3 court vide the impugned order dated 22.7.2026 allowed the application by directing SHO concerned to provide necessary police assistance either personally or through some other police official not below the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector, to the plaintiff/respondent to ensure the unobstructed carrying out of temporary waterproofing and preventive repairs on the premises in possession of the plaintiff/respondent, but not doing any structural alteration or reconstruction. 7 Feeling dissatisfied by the order, dated 22.7.2026, the defendants/petitioners have approached this Court by filing instant petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8 It is contended by Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners that the learned trial Court has gone astray while passing the impugned order inasmuch as, ad interim order, which was passed by the learned trial court, was with respect to restraining the defendants/petitioners from continuing with their act of dismantling or interfering or forcibly evicting the plaintiff/respondent from the suit shop till filing of the reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, whereas as regards the defendants/petitioners, neither they are dismantling shop in question nor they are interfering or evicting the plaintiff/respondent from the same. 4 9 On the other hand, Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, while defending the impugned order, has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned order, whereby necessary protection has been given to the plaintiff/respondent by invoking provisions of Section 151 of CPC. 10 During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent that the plaintiff/respondent was constrained to file an application under Section 151 of CPC on account of the fact that in rainy season the plaintiff/respondent was facing difficulty, and, thus, he intended to carry out necessary repairs of the disputed shop. 11 This Court is afraid whether such relief could have been granted by the learned trial Court to the plaintiff/respondent in the application filed before the trial Court for the grant of police assistance. 12 When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the application, as filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Section 151 of CPC, with liberty to file an appropriate application for redressal of his grievances including filing the application for carrying out necessary repairs of the disputed shop in question. 5 13 Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners has no objection for the aforesaid liberty being granted to the plaintiff/respondent. 14 Since the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has withdrawn the application under Section 151 of CPC, which was filed before the learned trial Court, therefore, impugned order, dated 22.7.2026 loses its efficacy. 15 Consequently, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the plaintiff/respondent files an appropriate application for redressal of his grievance, in that event, the same shall be decided by the learned trial court strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 16 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) 29th July, 2026 Judge (pankaj)