2026:HHC:17412 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.367 of 2023 Decided on: 13.05.2026 Kamli ….Petitioner Versus Amar Singh & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, vice Mr.Mohan Sharma, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral) The present petition has been filed by the defendant/petitioner against the judgment as passed by Additional District Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., Camp at Karsog, dated 09.06.2023, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC was allowed and the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property during the pendency of the suit and the order as passed by learned Civil Judge, Karsog, District Mandi, was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and 2 2026:HHC:17412 mandatory injunction against the present petitioner/defendant on the ground that land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.66 min/119 min Khasra No.1028, measuring 00-00-09 bighas, situated in Mohal Balindi/144, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. is described as Gair Mumkin Gawain. The same is recorded in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and other co- sharers as per jamabandi for the year 2018-2019. The father of the plaintiffs had constructed cowshed over the suit land, which was in absolute possession of the plaintiffs and the same got burnt in the month of December 2021. The Halqua Patwari inspected the spot for providing claim and, in this regard, took the signatures of plaintiff No.1. Now, the defendant is going to cover the land in the suit land by covering it through a tarpaulin. 3. As per plaintiff, it was the defendant has given her whole share to Puran Chand and, in that regard, Rapat No.323 dated 15.12.2021 was entered. Now, the defendant wants to grab the land of the plaintiffs for construction of a house. The plaintiffs are senior citizens and the defendant is trying to cover the suit land forcibly through a tarpaulin. Though, requests were made to the defendant, but she did not pay any heed to the same. The suit land is adjoining the road side, which is a valuable portion of the suit land and of prime importance. 3 2026:HHC:17412 4. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. 5. The suit was contested by the defendant by refuting all the allegations as levelled in the plaint. 6. The defendant filed reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and prayed for dismissal of the same. 7. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 07.12.2022 dismissed the application as filed by the plaintiffs/respondents. 8. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi on 08.12.2022. Learned first appellate Court vide its impugned judgment dated 09.06.2023 accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and directed both the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. . 9. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is contended by Mr.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned judgment as passed by learned first appellate Court is erroneous and liable to be 4 2026:HHC:17412 quashed and set aside. He submits that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the point in controversy. Therefore, after accepting the present petition, the impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the order as passed by learned trial Court should be restored. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate, has defended the impugned judgment. He submits that the learned first appellate Court has rightly appreciated the point in controversy and, after perusing the material placed on record, has passed the impugned judgment, which does not call for any interference. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file. 13. It has come on record that as per jamabandi for the year 2018-2019, the suit land is being owned and possessed by various co-owners/co-sharers. In the column of possession, the name of defendant is not being reflected. On the other hand, the plaintiffs are being shown in the column of possession. The defence which has been projected by the defendant in the written statement as well as reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is that on the basis of family settlement she is in possession over the suit land for the last more than 25 years. 5 2026:HHC:17412 Admittedly, no record has been placed on record in order to substantiate the said contention. In the absence of any documentary evidence placed on record, at this stage, while determining the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, no credence can be given to the submissions of learned counsel for the defendant. It has also been established that the suit land is adjacent to the road and situated in a prime location. If the defendant is allowed to interfere and alter the nature of the suit land, the very purpose of filing the suit will be defeated. Therefore, in order to maintain equity and balance between the parties, learned first appellate Court has rightly passed the order by directing the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions has held that while invoking the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of interference is narrow and limited. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.13801 of 2025, titled Shri Digant vs M/S. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., has held as follows: “22. The scope of High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 fell for consideration before a three- Judge Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. 1 This Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a 6 2026:HHC:17412 writ of certiorari under Article 226, though they may be questioned in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and correcting mere errors. exercised in cases The not for power occasioning may be grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.” 15. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sugarbai M. Siddiq and others vs. Ramesh S. Hankare (dead) by LRs, 2001(8) SCC 477 has held as under: “6. There can be little doubt that in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to see whether the lower courts/tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and if so, whether the impugned order is vitiated by procedural irregularity; in other words, the court is concerned not with decision but with decision making process. On this ground alone the order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.” 16. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, has held that while 7 2026:HHC:17412 exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as a Court for first appeal. The relevant paras of the said judgment 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 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.2 has observed:— 8 2026:HHC:17412 “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.” 17. In view of above exposition of law, this Court sees no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. 18. In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant petition being devoid of any merit 9 2026:HHC:17412 is dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 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. ( Romesh Verma ) Judge May 13, 2026 (vt)