1 2026:HHC:41190 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 245 of 2026 Decided on: 22.9.2026 Halku … Petitioner Versus Jai Ram & ors. …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.G., for respondents No. 2 to 5. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner Halku has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 20.3.2026, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in CMA No. 23 of 2026. 2 2026:HHC:41190 2. By way of order dated 20.3.2026, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, against the order dated 18.12.2025, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in C.M.P. No.40/2030 (13-6 of 2023), in Civil Suit No. 7-1 of 2023, titled as ‘Halku versus Jai Ram’. 3. By virtue of order dated 18.12.2025, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner. 4. 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. 5. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition before this court, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, may be summed up as under. Plaintiff Halku filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, asserting the fact that he is in exclusive possession of 3 2026:HHC:41190 Khata No. 179, Khatauni No. 620, khasra number 498/1 (old), New Khasra Nos. 685, 685/1, measuring 0- 45-00 hectares and khasra number 685/2, measuring 0-00-80 hectares, situated in Muhal Kuthari, Sub-Tehsil Tikker, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, since November 1970, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). 5.1 According to the plaintiff, khasra number 498 (old), measuring 14 bigha 12 biswa, was granted in Nautor to defendant on 20.11.1970. The plaintiff, along with his father, took possession of the land and started levelling the land for cultivation purposes. The land was converted and used for cultivating the crops by the plaintiff since then. The plaintiff, after taking possession of the land, constructed a house and also obtained electricity and water connection. 5.2 In the year 1978, the defendant came and took possession of the land, except 8 bighas, as specified in para 1, which continued to remain in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff changed the nature of the land by planting 4 2026:HHC:41190 apple trees and converted the land into orchard. In the year 1994, due to heavy rain, residential house constructed by the plaintiff, on the suit land, was damaged and plaintiff was given grant under, Gandhi Kutir Yojana for reconstruction of the house. The said house was reconstructed on the suit land, without any objection from anyone. 5.3 Thereafter, the defendant filed a representation on 05.05.1995, before the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kuthari against the plaintiff to get the land vacated from the possession of the plaintiff. The said notice was replied by claiming the possession over the suit land since 20.11.1970 onwards. The plaintiff has pleaded that thereafter, he is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land. 5.4 It is the further case of the plaintiff that in the year 2005, the Government of Himachal Pradesh, initiated proceedings under Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, against the plaintiff and other occupants and passed the order of eviction dated 16.01.2009 and despite the said order, the same was never executed and 5 2026:HHC:41190 plaintiff remained in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land. On the basis of above facts, he has asserted his hostile, adverse possession, over the suit land. 5.5 It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant now started coming to the suit land and started giving threatening to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also informed by the revenue authorities that the defendant is trying to attest the mutation, in his favour of assumed possession, on the basis of the judgment, passed in Civil Suit No. 23/1 of 2009/2008 filed by him, against the State of H.P., for correction of revenue record, on the basis of nautor, whereas, the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit land, which is coming in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, since 20.11.1970. 5.6 According to the plaintiff, the defendant also obtained a decree, in his favour, in Civil Suit No. 23/1 of 2009/2008, titled as, ‘Jai Ram versus State of H.P.’ fraudulently, by concealing the true and material facts, from the Court. 6 2026:HHC:41190 5.7 On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the following prayer has been made in the suit: “a) That declaration to the effect that the plaintiff has acquired the right, title and interest of the suit land comprised in Khata No. 179, Khatauni No. 620, Khasra No. 498/1 (old) New Khasra Nos. 685, 685/1, measuring 0-45-00 Hectares, and Khasra No. 685/2, measuring 0- 00-80 hectares, situated in Mohal Kuthari, Sub-Tehsil Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. continuously since 20.11.1970 by way of adverse possession and the defendant's right over the said land has extinguished much prior to the decree dated 24.09.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 23/1 of 2009/2008 titled as Jai Ram Versus State of H.P. and the same is not binding upon the Rights of the plaintiff over the suit land coming in exclusive possession of the plaintiff. b) That permanent prohibitory injunction may of the plaintiff and kindly be issued in favour against the defendant restraining the defendant from forcibly and illegally encroaching, interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff by alienating or changing the nature of the suit land, creating any charge over the suit land in any manner comprised in Khata No. 179, Khatauni No. 620, Khasra No. 498/1 (old) New Khasra Nos. 685, 685/1, measuring 0-45-00 Hectares, and Khasra No. 685/2, measuring 0-00-80 hectares, situated in Mohal Kuthari, Sub-Tehsil Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. through their person, persons, family members, labourers contractors etc. whatsoever of any kind.” 7 2026:HHC:41190 6. Along with the plaint, an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC has been filed, seeking interim injunction, against the respondents/defendants, restraining them from interfering forcibly dispossessing, alienating, changing the nature of the suit land and creating any charge over the suit land. 7. Defendant No. 1 has filed written statement, by taking the preliminary objections, that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable; plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit; plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and the suit is not valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. 8. The stand taken by the plaintiff, in his plaint, has been disputed, denying his possession, over the suit land. Defendant No. 1 has also pleaded that he has filed the Civil Suit No. 23/1 of 2008/2009 for declaration and permanent injunction, which was decreed, by the court on 24.11.2016 and he has been declared as owner in possession of the suit land. 8 2026:HHC:41190 9. Thereafter, the said judgment and decree has been assailed by the State of H.P. by filing the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rohru, Shimla. The said appeal has also been dismissed, on 31.10.2018. Thereafter, the State of H.P. has preferred the Regular Second Appeal No. 60 of 2019, along with the application for staying the operation of the judgment, which has also been dismissed on 29.08.2019. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 has filed the execution, under Order 21 Rule 11 of the CPC, on 24.09.2016. 10. The said execution petition has been finally decided by the court, on 25.11.2022, by virtue of which, the state of H.P. has been directed by the court to attest the mutation in favour of defendant No. 1. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal. 11. On the basis of the similar grounds, defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 have also contested the suit. 12. The application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 has also been, contested, on the similar grounds. The 9 2026:HHC:41190 learned trial Court has dismissed the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, vide order dated 18.12.2025. 13. The aforesaid order has unsuccessfully been assailed by the plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court. 14. Now, the findings have been assailed by the petitioners, by filing the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. The petitioner is before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where scope of interference by this Court is very limited. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in "K. Valarmathi & Ors. Versus Kumaresan”, 2025 INSC 606" has elaborately discussed the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para 9 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: "Essence of the power under Article 227 being supervisory, it cannot be invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of the court which it seeks to supervise. Nor can it be invoked to supplant a statutory legal remedy under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. For example, existence of appellate remedy under Section 96 of the Code operates as a 10 2026:HHC:41190 near total bar to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227." 17. In a recent decision in "Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. Versus B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors.”, 2026 INSC 434", the scope of interference has again been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph 35 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- "35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this. Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is 11 2026:HHC:41190 not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal." 18. Moreover, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot re-assess or review the material, which was taken into consideration, by the learned trial Court. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided, by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh versus Natwarlal Shamji Gada and another, 2026 INSC 416. Relevant paragraph-16 of the judgment is, reproduced, as under:- “16. Yet another aspect that goes to the root of the matter is that the tenants challenged the order passed by the Appellate Bench permitting the amendment by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that in exercise of such jurisdiction, it would not be open for the High Court to review or reassess the material that was taken into consideration by the Court while passing the impugned order. In this regard we may usefully refer to the decision in Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia, wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court held as under: 12 2026:HHC:41190 “11 ……The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article 227. In Sadhna Lodh v National Insurance Company4, this Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere under Article 227.” Thus, the discretion exercised by the Appellate Bench while allowing the amendment was not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially when there was no error of 13 2026:HHC:41190 jurisdiction nor a statutory bar for permitting the plaint to be amended based on subsequent events.” (Self emphasis supplied) 19. Being guided by the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the view that when, the learned trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, by dismissing the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which has been upheld by the learned First Appellate Court, then, the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff to preserve the subject matter of the lis, is not liable to be accepted, as mutation does not confer any title, as it has been apprehended in the petition that on the basis of the judgment and decree, passed in Civil Suit No. 23/1 of 2008/2009, the defendant No. 1 is now in a hurry to get the mutation attested, in his favor. 20. The plaintiff has taken the plea of adverse possession, and once the plea of adverse possession has been taken, then, the equity goes against such person. In such situation, the plaintiff has to plead 14 2026:HHC:41190 each and every ingredient to seek injunction, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. 21. The findings, which have been rendered by the learned trial Court, do not fall within the definition of ‘perverse findings’, nor the same can be said to be the findings, contrary to the jurisdiction, vested in the learned trial Court. 22. Considering the admitted stand of the plaintiff that the suit land was allotted to the defendants, he is not entitled for any relief, as claimed in the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. 23. With these observations, the present petition is dismissed. 24. 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. 25. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) 22.9.2026 Judge Kalpana 15 2026:HHC:41190