2026:HHC:42212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 2076 of 2025 Reserved on: 19.9.2026 Date of Decision: 30.9.2026 Bhagwan Dass ...Applicant Versus Sher Singh & anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Applicant : M/s Paramjit Singh Jammu and Pawan Gautam, Advocates. For Respondents No.1(a) to 1(e) and Respondent No.2. : Ms Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present application has been filed for taking action against the respondents for disobedience of the order dated 21.10.2014 and 27.2.2015 passed by this Court. It has been asserted that the Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land on 21.10.2014. The order was made absolute on 27.2.2015. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:42212 respondents tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. They cut down the trees standing on the suit land in violation of the order of the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the respondents be punished for disobedience of the order of the Court. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply making preliminary submissions that the applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands and the applicant is estopped from filing the application. It is asserted that respondent No.2 is the owner of Khasra No. 479/1, Baldev Singh is the owner of Khasra No. 479/2, and the applicant is the owner of Khasra No.479/3. The respondents never interfered with the applicant’s possession. The application has been filed without any basis. Hence, it is prayed that the application be dismissed. 3. A replication denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the application was filed. 4. This Court framed the following issues on 6.9.2016: (1) Whether non-applicants have intentionally and voluntarily disobeyed the order of the Court as alleged? (2) Whether the applicant has no cause of action to file a contempt application as alleged? 3 2026:HHC:42212 (3) Relief. 5. The parties were called upon to produce the evidence. The applicant examined himself (AW-1), Dev Raj (AW-2), Naresh Kumar (AW-3), Ashwani Kumar (AW-4), and Satish Kumar (AW-5). The respondent Krishna Devi examined herself (RW-1) and Sher Singh (RW-2). 6. I have heard M/s Paramjit Singh Jammu and Pawan Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant, and Ms Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel for the non-applicants/respondents. 7. Mr Pawan Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the Court had passed an order of status quo. The respondents violated the order by cutting down the trees from the suit land. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and action be taken against the respondents for violation of the order of the Court. 8. Ms Anjalli Soni Verma, learned counsel for the non- applicants/respondents, submitted that as per the report of demarcation, the trees were cut from Khasra No. 479. The status quo order was passed regarding Khasra No. 479, and there is no violation of the order of the Court. The application has been filed 4 2026:HHC:42212 without any basis. Hence, she prayed that the present application be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. Issue No. 1: 10. The order passed by this Court does not mention the Khasra number of the suit land. Therefore, it is necessary to look into other material to determine the land regarding which the order was passed. The applicant had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC asserting that he had purchased Khasra No. 479 and Khasra No. 480 from respondent No. 1. He was claiming alternative land purchased by him in Khasra No. 480, which was later given to Baldev Singh. The applicant had constructed his residential house over Khasra No. 480 and was owner in possession of Khasra No. 480 since 29.12.1978. He would suffer an irreparable loss and injury if the respondents were not restrained from interfering with the applicant’s possession over Khasra No. 480. Therefore, it was prayed that the application be allowed and respondents be restrained from interfering in the applicant’s possession over Khasra No. 480. 5 2026:HHC:42212 11. Thus, it is apparent that the claim was restricted to Khasra No. 480. This number was repeatedly mentioned in the application, and no claim was made regarding Khasra No. 479. 12. The applicant asserted in his cross-examination that the High Court had granted a stay order regarding Khasra No.479, which is factually incorrect because the order was not granted regarding Khasra No. 479, but regarding Khasra No. 480. Thus, his statement does not establish the violation of the order of the Court. 13. Dev Raj (AW-2) conducted the demarcation and issued a report (Ext.AW-2/A) stating that no tree was found to have been cut from Khasra No. 480. Thus, the report of the demarcation does not prove that the respondents had violated the status quo order by cutting the trees. 14. It was submitted that the demarcation was not properly carried out by Devi Ram, Tehsildar. This submission will not help the applicant because if the report of the demarcation is excluded, there is no evidence that the trees were cut from Khasra No. 480. 6 2026:HHC:42212 15. ASI Naresh Kumar admitted in his cross- examination that he could not identify the land without the help of the revenue authorities. Ashwani Kumar (AW-4) admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding the Khasra number and the ownership. Satish Kumar (AW-5) stated in his cross-examination that he could not tell the Khasra number of the suit land or who was the owner of which land. Thus, the statements of the witnesses do not establish that the trees were cut from Khasra No. 480. 16. Therefore, the applicant has failed to establish that the respondents have violated the order passed by this Court, and this issue is answered in the negative. Issue No.2: 17. In view of the findings on Issue No. 1, the applicant has failed to prove the cause of action, and this issue is answered in the negative and is decided against the applicant. Final order: 18. In view of the above, the present application fails and is dismissed. 7 2026:HHC:42212 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th September, 2026 (Chander)