IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.8 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12th May, 2026. Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Nimmo Devi ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for the respondent. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 01.11.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in CMA No. 13 of 2025, titled Vinod Kumar vs. Smt. Nimmo Devi, whereby appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed and order dated 08.07.2025 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Chamba in CMA No. 363 of 2024 was affirmed, whereby application filed by the plaintiff/ respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for the grant of ad interim injunction was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and workmen from causing nuisance or raising any forcible and illegal construction over the joint, undivided and un-partition suit land comprised in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Khata Khatuni No. 82/89, Khasra No. 527 measuring 00-08-00- bighas, (00-02-00 Gair Mumkin panchayat Ghar) and (00-06-00 bighas Gair Mumkin Khandhar) situated at Mauza Kohlari, Hadust No. 25, Pargna Udaipur, Patwar Circle Chamdoli, Kanungo Circle Sach, Tehsil Chamba District Chamba H.P. Further prayer for Mandatory injunction was also made to the effect that if the defendant succeeded in raising forcible and illegal construction over the suit land, then he be directed to restore the suit property in its original position. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land is in the joint ownership and possession of the parties. In order to demonstrate the same, the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2020-21 has been attached with the plaint. It has been averred that in the last week of May 2024, the defendant marked and developed the “GAIR MUMKIN KHANDHAR” comprised in Khasra No. 527 of Mohal Kohlari, Tehsil and District Chamba H.P. to raise the construction of his house and while doing so, the plaintiff had raised the objection and requested the defendant not to start the construction work of his house without partition of the same. 4. In this background, suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from changing the nature, and raising forcible construction over the suit land. 5. The suit was contested by the defendant/petitioner by filing the written statement taking therein preliminary objections with 3 regard to maintainability, estoppel, cause of action, locus standi etc. On merits, it was stated that though the suit land is joint amongst the parties and other co-sharers as per revenue record, however, as per the settled possession of the respective parties over the suit land, the same is being utilized by the respective parties by virtue of family settlement. 6. In para 3 (a) of the written statement specific ground was taken that the plaintiff/respondent has already raised construction of her house and shop over the suit land by covering an area in excess to her share in the suit land. Further it has been stated that the plaintiff is owner to the extent of 00-02-13 Bigha while raising construction the plaintiff has covered over and above the area qua her share. It has further been stated that defendant has not raised any new construction but he is renovating/ reconstructing his old house, which is allotted to him, in family settlement and the same is in his exclusive possession. After refuting all the averments, as made in the plaint, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. The plaintiff filed the replication and the defence of the defendant, specially in para 3 of the written statement, was refuted in the replication. 8. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for the issuance of the ad interim injunction. 9. Reply to the application was filed filed by the present petitioner/defendant, stating therein that respondent/ plaintiff had 4 already raised construction of her house and shop over the suit land by covering the excess area. 10. The learned trial Court while deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC vide its order dated 8.7.2025 allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature, possession and construction over the suit land during the pendency of the main suit or till the same is partitioned by metes and bounds. 11. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant/petitioner preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P. on 26.07.2025. 12. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 01.11.2025 dismissed the appeal as preferred by the defendant. 13. Still feeling aggrieved the petitioner/defendant has invoked the provisions of article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned judgment and order as passed by the learned Courts below. 14. It is contended by Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate, that the Courts below have erred by passing the impugned judgment/order by not taking into consideration the fact that the respondent/plaintiff has herself raised the construction over the joint land. Therefore, the principle of jointness will not be applicable in the present case. He further submits that learned trial Court has dealt with this aspect, however, the learned First Appellate Court has not assigned any 5 reasons, though specific ground were taken in the grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Court. 15. On the other hand, the judgment and order as passed by the learned Courts below has been defended by the learned counsel for the defendant. She submits that Courts below after appreciating the material evidence on record, have rightly come to the conclusion and directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature, possession and construction over the suit land during the pendency of the suit or till the time same is partitioned. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file. 17. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned First Appellate Court has neither addressed nor assigned any reason with respect to the fact that the respondent herself raised the construction over the suit land. Therefore, the principle of jointness is not applicable in the present case. 18. He further submits that the respondent/plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands, and a person seeking injunction should approach the Court with clean hands. He further submits that, since the grant of injunction is an equitable relief, the said fact has been suppressed by the respondent/plaintiff in her pleadings. 19. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Courts below have taken into 6 consideration all the aspects raised by the respective parties, thus, there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order and judgment as passed by the learned Courts below. 20. While perusing the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, prima facie, the grounds raised by the present petitioner before the learned First Appellate Court have neither been dealt with nor has any reason been assigned qua the said contentions raised by the defendant before the learned First Appellate Court. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the reasons are required to be assigned while passing the orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2010) 4 SCC 785, titled as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department,Works Contract & Leasing, Kota vs. M/s Shukla & Brothers, decided on 15.04.2010, held as follows: “24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dis- satisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever precise they may be. 30. In light of the judgments referred to and relied upon by the parties including the judgment of this Court, it is true that requirement of stating reasons for judicial orders necessarily does not mean a very detailed or lengthy order, but there should be some reasoning recorded by the Court for declining or granting relief to the petitioner. The purpose, as already noticed, is to make the litigant aware of the reasons for which the relief is declined as 7 well as to help the higher Court in assessing the correctness of the view taken by the High Court while disposing off a matter. May be, while dealing with the matter at the admission stage even recording of short listening dealing with the merit of the contentions raised before the High Court may suffice, in contrast, a detailed judgment while matter is being disposed off after final hearing, but in both events, in our view, it is imperative for the High Court to record its own reasoning however short it might be.” 22. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2010) 9 SCC 486 titled as M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others, decided on 08.09.2010, held as follows: “22. In Woolcombers of India Ltd. vs. Workers Union and another, AIR 1973 SC 2758, this Court while considering an award under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act insisted on the need of giving reasons in support of conclusions in the Award. The Court held that the very requirement of giving reason is to prevent unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching conclusions. The second principle is based on the jurisprudential doctrine that justice should not only be done, it should also appear to be done as well. The learned Judges said that a just but unreasoned conclusion does not appear to be just to those who read the same. Reasoned and just conclusion on the other hand will also have the appearance of justice. The third ground is that such awards are subject to Article 136 jurisdiction of this Court and in the absence of reasons, it is difficult for this Court to ascertain whether the decision is right or wrong. 28. In Gurdial Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1979) 2 SCC 368, this Court, dealing with a service matter, relying on the ratio in Union of India vs. Mohan lal Capoor, (1973) 2 SCC 836, held that "rubber-stamp reason" is not enough and virtually quoted the observation in Capoor (supra) to the extent that: 28...Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions." 23. In the present case, no reasons have been assigned by the learned First Appellate Court to the stand taken by the defendant in the written statement as well as in the grounds of appeal. 8 24. Consequently, without touching upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that, after setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the case is remitted back to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Chamba, with a direction to decide the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC afresh by affording an opportunity to the respective parties to argue their case and to take the appeal to its logical end strictly in accordance with law. 25. Parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 15.06.2026. 26. It is made clear that the learned First Appellate Court shall not issue fresh notices for the service of the parties, and the learned counsel for the parties undertake that the parties, through their counsel, shall remain present before the learned First Appellate Court on 15.06.2026. 27. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of, and the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 12th May, 2026 (Nisha)