2026:HHC:10174 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 184 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.03.2026 ________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh & others ..Petitioners. Versus Ram Dei & others ...Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr.Manish Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. R.L Thakur, learned Advocate. 4._ ________________________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge The present petition arises out of the order as passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.8, Shimla, dated 06.11.2024, whereby the application filed by the present petitioners under the provisions of Order 2 Rules 2 & 3 read with Sections 10 and 151 CPC has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the present respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent prohibitory injunction before the learned Trial Court with respect to the suit land comprising in Khewat 2 .2026:HHC:10174 No.24 min, Khatauni No.47 min, Khasra No.119 old (new Khasra No.146), situated at Mohal Dhaliayana, Tehsil Junga, District Shimla, H.P. 3. The said suit was contested by the State/present petitioners and it has been informed that the said suit is pending for leading evidence by the defendants. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the present respondents filed a fresh suit for recovery of damages amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-for wrong and illegal eviction/ejectment and dispossession of the plaintiffs from their ancestral house. It has been averred in the plaint that they are the owners-in-possession of the suit property bearing Khewat No.24 min, Khatauni No.47 min, Khasra No.119 (old) now replaced with new Khasra No.146, situated at Mohal Dhaliayana, Tehsil Junga, District Shimla, H.P and ancestral house of two storeyed built up area. They have been dispossessed by the defendants in the middle of June, 2012. Defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from their ancestral house without conducting proceedings for acquisition of the land and ancestral house, and as such, the dispossession is wholly illegal and void. Consequently, it 3 .2026:HHC:10174 was prayed in the plaint that the decree of damages amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- and reasonable compensation for mental agony and harassment along with interest @ 24% per annum till its realization for wrong and illegal dispossession of the plaintiffs from the ancestral house be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. 5. The defendants No.1 to 5 filed written statement on 03.01.2014 and all the averments as made in the plaint were denied. 6. In the present suit, the issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.8 Shimla on 02.06.2014 in the following manner:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- and reasonable compensation for mental agony and harassment along with interest @ 24% p.a. till its realization for wrong and illegal dis- possession and ejectment of the plaintiffs from ancestral house situated on Khewat No.24 Min, Khatauni No.47 min, Khasra No.119 (old) now replaced with new Khasra No.146, situated at Mohal Dhaliayana, Tehsil Junga, Distt. Shimla, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit, as alleged? OPD 4 .2026:HHC:10174 5. Whether the suit is time barred, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is stopped to file the suit against the defendants on account of the acts, deeds, acquisition, as alleged ? OPD 7. Relief.” 7. The case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants. During the pendency of the present suit, an application under Order 2 Rules 2 & 3 read with Sections 10 and 151 CPC was filed by the present petitioners. 8. It was averred in the application that the plaintiffs have filed a Civil Suit No. 900187 of 2013 between the same parties and same suit land and on the same cause of action, which is still pending adjudication before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Court No.8 Shimla. No relief of recovery, as prayed in the present suit, was claimed in the previously filed suit, therefore, in view of the provisions of Order 2 Rules 2 & 3 read with Sections 10 and 151 CPC, the present suit is barred and the present suit is liable to be dismissed. 9. The present respondents filed a reply to the said application and all the allegations and averments as made in the application were refuted. It was submitted in the 5 .2026:HHC:10174 reply that both the suits are quite different and it amounts to separate and distinct cause of action in terms of Order 2 Rule 4CPC, which provide that suit for damages and suit for recovery of immovable property cannot be granted together . Therefore, the present respondents/plaintiffs sought dismissal of the present application. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 06.11.2024 dismissed the application. 10. It is contended by Mr. Manish Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General that once the respondents had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the present petitioners, therefore, the subsequent suit, which was filed for the recovery of damages of Rs.3,50,000/- is not maintainable. 11. On the other hand, Mr. R.L Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order and he has submitted that both the suits are different and distinct, which have been filed on different cause of action, therefore, the application as filed is not maintainable and the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court is sustainable. 6 .2026:HHC:10174 12. Admittedly, the present respondents have filed a suit for declaration and possession before the learned trial Court, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court and during its pendency, fresh suit for damages to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- has been filed, which is also pending adjudication for the evidence of the parties. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment in the case of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and another vs ATM Constructions Pvt Ltd, Civil Appeal No.7890 of 2023 dated 30.11.2023, which clinches the present controversy. It shall be apt to reproduce Para 17 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as under:- “17. In view of the enunciation of law, as referred to above, suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action. There being different consideration for adjudication, in our opinion, second suit filed by the respondent claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was maintainable. The application filed by the appellants for rejection of the plaint was rightly dismissed by the Courts below. However, the appellants are well within their right to raise the issue, if any part of the claim in the suit is time-barred but the entire claim cannot be said to be so. ” 7 .2026:HHC:10174 14. In the said judgment, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the second suit for arrears of rent and damages could not be barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. 15. In the present case also, the claims as put forward by the plaintiffs/respondents are different, distinct and on different cause of actions, therefore, the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 are not applicable in the attending facts & circumstances of the present case. It seems that the present petitioners, in order to drag the litigation for perpetuity, have filed the present proceeding, that too, at a later stage, when the case is fixed for leading evidence by the defendants. 16. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order, which has been passed by the learned trial Court on 06.11.2024, does not suffer from any infirmity and consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Record of learned trial Court be sent back to the learned court below. 17. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the parties. 8 .2026:HHC:10174 Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (Romesh Verma) Judge March 30, 2026 (meera)