2026:HHC:5026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 793 of 2025 Decided on : 27.02.2026 Anoop Kumar & Others …Petitioners Versus Virender …Respondent The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : None. Virender Singh, Judge The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 11.11.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Kandaghat, District Solan H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court’), in CMA No. 29-K/6 of 2024, which was filed in Civil Suit No. 09-K/1 of 2024, titled as “Varinder Vs Anoop Kumar & Others”. 2. By way of the order dated 11.11.2024, the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C., directing the parties to maintain 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:5026 status quo qua the nature, ownership and possession of the suit land, till the pendency of the litigation. 3. This order has been upheld by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-1 Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “first Appellate Court’) on 08.10.2025. 4. Parties to the present petition, hereinafter, are being 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, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:- 5.1 Plaintiff Varinder has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that suit of the plaintiff may please be decreed with costs and decree for permanent, perpetual and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the valuable trees consisting of Baan etc., changing its nature by raising construction of any type, causing loss and damage to the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 14/20 bearing Khasra No. 214 measuring 12-05 bighas situated in village Jhaja, Hadbast No. 451, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. vide jamabandi for the year 2017-2018, and also from occupying the best portion of the suit land and adjacent to Jhaja – Solan road through themselves, their family members, agents, servants, contractors, etc. whosoever in any manner whatsoever till the suit land is partitioned by metes and bounds may please be passed in favour of the 3 2026:HHC:5026 plaintiff and against the defendants. Or any other relief deemed fit in the case may also be awarded in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.” 6. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has also been filed for the relief that during the pendency of the suit, respondents may be restrained from cutting and removing the valuable trees, change the nature of the suit land by raising construction or causing loss or damage to the suit land till the same is partitioned by metes and bounds. 7. The learned trial Court has allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, vide order dated 11.11.2024, after considering the fact that the parties to the lis are co-sharers and partition of the same had not taken place. Consequently, the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua nature, ownership and possession of the suit land, till the pendency of the litigation. 8. The learned first Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, vide judgment dated 08.10.2025. 9. Now, the defendants are before this Court. It is the admitted stand of the parties to the lis that the suit land is joint between the parties i.e. plaintiff, defendants 4 2026:HHC:5026 and other joint owners. However, according to the stand taken by the defendants, they are in separate possession, as per their share, over the suit land. 10. It is also the case of the defendants that partition proceedings are pending between the parties. In this regard, relevant portion of para 3 of the written statement, is reproduced as under:- “3. ……………. The defendants also applied for the partition of the land situated in Mauza Jhaja in the year 2010 along with joint land situated in other three villages which is registered as partition case No. 7/9 of 2010 titled as Anoop Kumar and others versus Durga Dutt and others……….” 11. When the parties to the lis are co-sharers and partition proceedings are pending, then, this Court is of the view that the relief, which has been granted to the plaintiff by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned first Appellate Court does not require any interference, as the learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendants, could not point out any error in the jurisdiction exercised by both the Courts below. 12. In view of the above, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below, that too, in the supervisory jurisdiction, which enables this Court to interfere only in order to correct 5 2026:HHC:5026 jurisdictional error, procedural impropriety, manifest injustice and perversity. The supervisory power is altogether different from appellate power. It is meant only to keep Courts, subordinate to it, within their legal authority. 13. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge 27th February, 2026 (Pramod Kumar)