1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 785 of 2025 Decided on: 22.9.2026 Kanta Devi … Petitioner Versus Harish Mohan & anr. …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Kanta Devi has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 13.10.2025, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit titled as, ‘Kanta Devi versus Harish Mohan & others’. 2 2. By way of order dated 13.10.2025, the learned trial Court, has deleted the names of respondents No. 3 to 7, from the array of parties to the application, under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Necessary facts, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under: Plaintiff Kanta Devi has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, against defendants No. 1 and 2. In the said case, learned trial Court has passed the following order on 29.3.2025. Through the present application, the applicant is seeking the relief of ad- Interim Injunction restraining the respondent their agents from interfering, changing the nature and raising the construction over the suit land comprised in Khata no. 384, Khatauni No. 487 Khasra no. 1303/223, 1123/226, 1304/1172/1128/228. 1307/1175/228 area measuring 0-05-90 hectares situated in Mohal Darang, Tehsil Jawalamukhi, District Kangra HP as per Jamabandi for the year 2021-22. Further, it has been averred that the suit land is possessed by the applicant along with other co-sharers. If 3 the respondents are not restrained by way of ad-interim injunction irreparable loss will be caused to the applicant which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The prima-facie case and balance of convenience lies in the favour of the applicant. Hence, the present application. Heard. Record perused. In order to prove his possession over the suit land, the perusal of which shows that the suit land is possessed by the applicants, therefore, at this stage it become important to preserve the suit land from being interfered by any of the parties to the lis and thus at this stage a prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant and if the respondents is not restrained, by way of ad-interim injunction, irreparable loss will be caused to the applicant which can not be compensate in terms of money. Hence, the respondents are restrained from interfering, changing the nature, raising the construction and diverting the flow of water in any mariner towards the land of applicant till further order. Respondents have to show cause on or before 10.06.2025 as to why this order be not made absolute till disposal of main suit. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be made accordingly. 5. Thereafter, the plaintiff has moved application, under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC, against the defendants, as well as, Nirmala Devi, Sanjeev Sharma, Ravi Chand, Om Prakash and Ravi by impleading them as respondents No. 3 to 7, in the application, under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC, by levelling specific allegatins, 4 in paras 7 and 8 of the application. Paras 7 and 8 of the application are reproduced, as under: “"That the respondents no. 3 to 7 have acted under the political pressure and under the influence of respondent no. 1 & 2. The dispute between the applicant and the respondent no. 1 & 2 is a private dispute and there is no public nuisance to anyone in the society. Moreover, the respondents no. 3 to 7 were not bothered to wait for the decision or orders of the Court and have openly pressed the applicant's right as because she is a feeble and old lady. 8. That the respondents had sufficient time to obey the order from 29/03/2025 but they willfully have disobeyed the order in order to harass the applicant and give political benefit to the respondent no. 1 & 2 and to disturb the applicant.” 6. In the said application, names of respondents No. 3 to 7 were ordered to be deleted, by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 13.10.2025. The main ground, upon which, names of respondents No. 3 to 7 were ordered to be deleted, is that the above named persons were not parties to the Civil suit, filed by the plaintiff. 7. It is no longer res-integra that the proceedings, under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC can also be initiated against the person, who is not even party to the lis. 5 8. Considering all these facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, does not sustain in the judicial scrutiny by this Court and the same is set aside. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and order dated 13.10.2025 is set aside. 9. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court, on 6.10.2026. The learned trial Court is requested to proceed further with the application, under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, by giving opportunity to respondents No. 3 to 7, to put their defence, in accordance with law and thereafter decide the matter. 10. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. 11. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) 22.9.2026 Judge Kalpana 6