( 2026:HHC:2050 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 10 of 2026 Decided on: 07.01.2026 ____________________________________________________ Prabhat Singh and others ……….. petitioners Versus Bhuri Singh ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : M. Gurinder Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in an appeal against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court on an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, whereby the status quo order granted by the Trial Court qua the jeepable road has been modified to the extent that the present petitioners/defendants have been directed to remove the obstruction thereupon, i.e., the four-wheeler parked thereupon by the present petitioners/defendants. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order as well as the pleadings appended along with the present petition. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The dispute in the case at hand pertains to a jeepable road. The respondent/plaintiff claims that the said path is leads to a wood-cutting industry set up near his house. The same is alleged to have been blocked by the petitioners/defendants. Per contra, the petitioners/defendants have alleged that the land on which the jeepable road has been constructed has come to the petitioners/defendants in a family arrangement. It is further submitted that it is the respondent/plaintiff who has blocked the road and not the petitioners/defendants. 4. As per the revenue record, the land is shown to be joint insofar as the present respondent/plaintiff and petitioner No.4/defendant No. 4 are concerned. In terms of the revenue record, partition inter se the present respondent/plaintiff and petitioner No.4/defendant No. 4 has not been entered into. 5. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, both the Courts below have correctly ordered the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land. The modification of the interim order passed by the learned Trial Court to the extent whereby the present petitioners/defendants have been directed to remove the four- wheelers from the jeepable should not harm the petitioners/defendants in any manner, in view of the stand taken by the petitioners/defendants in the reply filed to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC before the learned Trial Court, 3 wherein it has been categorically asserted that the jeepable road in question has not been blocked by the petitioner/defendant. The relevant extract whereof reads as under: “It is the applicant willfully and intentionally deployed his threshing machine in the main entrance of the said road so that the respondent/ defendant no. 1 could not ply his tempo for earning his livelihood and other needs and purposes which is parked by the applicant/plaintiff himself, hence the question by deploying tractor on the pathway and by standing the tempo vehicle upon the path way and by standing and blocking the movement of the applicant/plaintiff does not arise at all.” 6. In view thereof, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 7th January, 2026 tarun