( 2026:HHC:17350 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 503 of 2018. Decided on : 12 th May, 2026. Narinder Kumar ......Petitioner. Versus Rakesh Kumar & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Paras Dhaulta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 and 3. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral). The present petition arises out of judgment as passed by learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 2018, on 30.10.2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff /respondent under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the CPC was accepted and he was held to be in possession of the shop at the time of filing of the suit, therefore, the parties were directed to maintain 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:17350 ) status quo ante qua the possession of the suit shop during the pendency of the suit. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for grant of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants through their agents, servants and legal representatives from dispossessing the plaintiff from vegetable shop situated at plot No.20, Khokha No.5 behind NAC Market Manali, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. In alternative, a decree for mandatory injunction was sought by the plaintiff/respondent before the learned trial Court. It was stated that defendant No.3 is the owner of the shop/khokha situated at Plot No. 20, Khokha No.5, behind NAC Market Manali, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. and had rented out the suit shop to defendant No.1 on tehbazari basis almost twelve years back. It was further averred that defendant No.1 rented out above suit shop to the plaintiff @ Rs.60,000/- per year almost eleven years back on an oral agreement. That 09.08.2012, defendant No.1 made rent agreement with the plaintiff till 31.03.2017. Since, then the plaintiff was peacefully running the business of vegetables in 3 ( 2026:HHC:17350 ) the suit shop and was regularly paying rent to defendant No.1. @ Rs.60,000/- per year i.e. tehbazari @ Rs.70/- per day to defendant No.3. 3. As per the case set up by the plaintiff, in the month of December, 2014, defendant No.1 threatened the plaintiff to vacate the suit shop as he wanted to sell the suit shop illegally to defendant No.2. On 09.12.2015, the plaintiff reported the matter to defendant No.3, regarding the illegal act of defendant No.1, but no legal action was taken by defendant No.3 against defendant No.1. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court with prayer that defendants be restrained through their agents, servants and legal representatives by passing a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit shop situated at plot No. 20, Khokha No.5, behind NAC Market Manali, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. Further a decree of mandatory injunction was also sought from the trial court, in case the defendants succeed in dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit shop. 4 ( 2026:HHC:17350 ) 4. The suit as filed by the plaintiff/respondent was contested by the defendant No.1/petitioner by filing a separate written statement by raising various preliminary objections with respect to cause of action, maintainability, estoppel etc. On merits, all the averments as made in the plaint were refuted and denied. It was specifically denied by defendant No.1 that he ever rented out the suit shop to the plaintiff. It was averred that he had not executed any written or oral agreement with the plaintiff. Allegations qua the sale of the suit shop were denied by defendant No.1. The said defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff. 5. Defendant No.3, Municipal Council Manali filed separate written statement by denying all the averments as made in the plaint. It was stated that the plaintiff moved an application on 25.05.2016 and requested the said defendant to change the suit shop in his name. However, as per the norms, defendant No.1 has no right to sublet the aforesaid suit shop in favour of third person. Defendant No.3 also prayed for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff. 5 ( 2026:HHC:17350 ) 6. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 seeking interim injunction against the defendants. 7. The said application was duly contested by the defendants by filing reply whereby the allegations and averments made in the application for grant of interim injunction were refuted. 8. Learned Civil Judge, Manali vide its order dated 25.06.2018 dismissed the application as filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. 9. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu on 02.07.2018. Learned first appellate Court vide its judgment dated 30.10.2018 accepted the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No.1. As per the said judgment, the order passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the parties were directed to maintain status quo ante qua the possession of the suit shop during the pendency of the suit. 6 ( 2026:HHC:17350 ) 10. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant No.1/petitioner has approached this court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. It is contended by Mr. Paras Dhaulta, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 that the learned first appellate Court has not appreciated the point in controversy in right perspective and has wrongly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 by setting aside a well reasoned order passed by the learned trial Court. He submits that admittedly, he is a tenant under the Municipal Council, Manali, therefore, it is petitioner, who has got prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convenience also lies in his favour as by passing of impugned judgment, it is the petitioner, who would suffer huge irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in monetary terms. He further submits that the petitioner is still in possession of the suit shop, therefore, no injunction could have been granted that too status quo ante qua possession of the suit shop. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has defended the 7 ( 2026:HHC:17350 ) impugned judgment as passed by learned first appellate Court. He submits that learned first appellate Court has thrashed the material placed on record and has rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has passed the triplicate test and is entitled for grant of relief of interim injunction. He further submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the present petition deserves to be rejected. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the case file. 14. The learned first appellate Court has quashed and set aside the order as passed by the learned trial Court after taking into consideration the material placed on record. The learned first appellate Court while relying upon the documents came to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the suit shop and he is paying garbage collection fee and electricity charges bills pertaining to the suit shop. The learned first appellate Court further came to the conclusion that photo copies of the documents placed on record and applications for changing tehbazaari in the years 2015 and 2016 filed by the plaintiff also 8 ( 2026:HHC:17350 ) show prima facie that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit shop. On the basis of said factual aspects, the learned first appellate Court has rightly ordered that the parties to maintain status quo qua possession of the suit shop. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, has laid the parameters while adjudicating the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the relevant paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 thereof read as under: “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is 9 ( 2026:HHC:17350 ) axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. has observed:- "6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. 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. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to." 16. However, this court is in agreement with the contention of the Mr. Paras Dhaulta, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 that without returning any findings qua 10 ( 2026:HHC:17350 ) the passing of status quo ante order, the learned first appellate Court has erred by passing the impugned judgment. 17. From the perusal of the judgment, which has been passed by the learned first appellate Court, it reveals that there is no such findings rendered or passed by it that during the pendency of the proceedings the present respondent No.1/plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit shop. Without arriving on such conclusion, the passing of status quo ante order in the considered view of this Court is not sustainable. In case, the learned first appellate Court was of the opinion that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned trial Court, the plaintiff/respondent was dispossessed from the suit shop, in that event, the findings were required to be rendered by the learned appellate Court. In the absence of recording of any reasons, the passing of status quo ante order deserves interference by this Court. 18. Consequently, this court afÏrms the passing of order of status quo to be maintained by the parties qua the suit shop by the learned appellate Court with modification that the said order 11 ( 2026:HHC:17350 ) shall not be read as status quo ante. With this modification, the instant petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 19. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observation made here- in-above, which are only for the purpose of the instant petition. Records be sent back henceforth. (Romesh Verma) Judge 12th May, 2026. (jai)