2026:HHC:39176 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. :      111 of 2024 Decided on : 14.09.2026 Sudesh Sood & Another …Petitioners Versus Abhishek Vashisht & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr.   R.K.   Bawa,   Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma   &   Mr.   Abhinav Thakur,  Advocates. For the respondents : Mr.   Neeraj   Gupta,   Senior Advocate   with   Mr.   Ajeet   Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated   10.01.2024,   passed   by   the   Court   of   learned Additional District Judge(1), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 34­S/14 of 2023, titled as ‘Sudesh   Sood   &   Another   versus   Abhishek   Vashisht   & Another’. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:39176 2. By way of order dated 10.01.2024, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by petitioners.  The said appeal was preferred by them against the order dated 21.10.2023, passed by the Court of learned Senior   Civil   Judge,   Theog,   District   Shimla   (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No.179 of 2023, titled   as   ‘Sudesh   Sood   &   Another   versus   Abhishek Vashisht & Another. 3. By way of order dated 21.10.2023, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), filed by the petitioners. 4. Parties to the present lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 5. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:­ 5.1. Plaintiffs   have   filed   the   suit   for   permanent prohibitory   and   perpetual   mandatory   injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land, 3 2026:HHC:39176 causing   trespass  and   raising   construction   over  the   suit land   comprised   in   Khata   Khatauni   No.   29min/68min, Khasra No. 176 measuring 31­92 Sq.meters and Khasra No.177 measuring 120­00 Sq. meters, Kita 2, situated at Mohal Shali Bazar, Tehsil Theog. District Shimla, H.P., as per   the   Jamabandi   for   the   year   2018­19   (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). 5.2. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that they are   recorded   as   non­occupancy   tenants,   in   column   of possession, qua the subject matter of  lis. According to them, they have owned shops over Khasra Nos.176 and 177, whereas, plaintiff No.1, is having two storeyed house over Khasra Nos. 176 and 177. They have annexed the copy of old tatima of khasra No. 34 and jamabandis for the years 1998­1999 and 2018 to 2019 along with a certificate dated   13.06.1950,   issued   by   the   Magistrate   First   Class Theog (Mahasu District) to demonstrate that plaintiffs were having their physical possession over old khasra No. 34 and new khasra numbers 176 and 177, for the last more than 110 years. 4 2026:HHC:39176 6. On the basis of the above facts, the relief, as claimed in the plaint, has been sought. 7. When put to notice, the suit has been contested by   the   defendants,   by   filing   the   written   statement,   in which,   preliminary   objections,   qua   maintainability;   the plaintiffs have no locus standi; the plaintiffs have got no right, title and interest over the suit land; and the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit on account of their own act, conduct and acquiescence, have been taken. 8. On   merits,   the   suit   has   been   contested   by denying the revenue entries by pleading that the plaintiffs have wrongly been recorded, in the column of possession on the basis of wrong and illegal order of Settlement Officer dated 21.08.2013. 8.1. According to the defendants, one Hari Ram was recorded   as   Marussi   Tenant   with   respect   to   the   land denoted by Khewat No.23, Khatauni Nos. 55 and 56 and Khasra   Nos. 34,   35,   36   situated   in   Chak   Shalli   Bazar Theog, as per jamabandi, for the year 1960­61. Said Hari Ram was having shops and he rented out the shops to tenants. About 80 years ago, two shops were rented out to 5 2026:HHC:39176 Dharam Dutt and Shiv Dittu. However, Shiv Dittu and Dharam Dutt abandoned the shops about 60 years ago and out of said shops, one was rented out to Hans Raj and his son Shami Sood was running the shop. Other shop was also rented out to the father of Tarun Goel and after the death of his father, Tarun Goel was running the said shop. 8.2. As   per   the   defendants,   thereafter,   they   have filed   execution   petition   against   Shami   Sood   and   Tarun Goel. Subsequently, they were evicted from the said shops, by the order of learned Rent Controller, Theog. Thereafter, the   possession   of   the   shops,   constructed   over   Khasra Nos.176   and   177,   was   given   to   the   defendants,   by   the learned Rent Controller, Theog. 9. On   the   similar   lines,   the   application   under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has also been contested. 10. Heard. 11. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the application, as referred to above and the said order has unsuccessfully 6 2026:HHC:39176 been assailed by them before the learned First Appellate Court. 12. Now, the unsuccessful plaintiffs are, before this Court, by way of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is settled principle that the primary purpose of the Court, while deciding the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, is to preserve the subject matter of the lis, until the rights of the parties are adjudicated by the competent Court, after holding a full fledged trial. 14. Being guided by the above principle, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the defendants not   to   create   any   third   party   interest,   over   the   subject matter of the lis, till the final disposal of the main case. 15. Pending   miscellaneous   application(s),   if   any, shall also stand disposed of. 16. Parties,   through   the   learned   counsel,   are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on  28th September, 2026, at 10.00 a.m. 17. Any   of   the   observations   made   herein   above shall   not   be   taken   as   an   expression   of   opinion   on   the 7 2026:HHC:39176 merits of the case, as these observations are confined only to the disposal of the present petition. Record be sent back immediately. ( Virender Singh ) September 14, 2026( ps ) Judge