( 2026:HHC:18418 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 192 of 2021. Decided on : 15 th May, 2026. Madan Lal ....Petitioner. Versus Girdhari Lal & Anr.. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral). The present petition arises out of order as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur in CMA No. 593 of 2019, on 23.08.2021, whereby, SHO Police Station Sadar Hamirpur was directed to implement order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the said Court and to remove the debris and pakka danga/retaining wall constructed by the defendant on the suit land as denoted by Khasra No. 974/1 in demarcation report dated 18.10.2019 and as shown in Aks Shajra Tatima. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his agents servants, family members and assignees from making any sort of encroachment over the suit land comprised in Khata No.28 min, Khatauni No.29 min, Khasra Nos. 974 & 975, kita 2, measuring 0-01-22 hectares situated in Village Brahlari, Mauja Jangal, Sub Tehsil Galore, District Hamirpur, H.P. It was further prayed that defendant be restrained from raising any construction and changing the nature of the suit land by extension of projection of his proposed construction over the suit land and raising construction without leaving the setbacks towards the suit land as required under law and from taking forcible possession of suit land or any part of it and in case the defendant succeeds making encroachment over the suit land by raising any construction over the suit land, in that event, a decree for possession by way of demolition by mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the suit land to its original position be passed. 3 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) 3. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement wherein various preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability, cause of action, estoppel etc., have been taken. On merits, the allegations as levelled in the plaint were refuted. 4. Plaintiffs/respondents along with suit have also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for interim injunction and vide its order dated 08.03.2019, the learned trial Court restrained the defendant from changing the nature of the suit land comprised in Khata No.28 min, Khatauni No.29 min, Khasra Nos. 974 & 975, kita 2, measuring 0-01-22 hectares situated in Village Brahlari, Mauja Jangal, Sub Tehsil Galore, District Hamirpur, H.P., raising any construction thereon, making encroachment thereon and taking forcible possession thereof till further orders. 5. The respondents/plaintiffs filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for providing police assistance so as to enforce the injunction order dated 08.03.2019 as passed by the learned trial Court. It was averred in the application by the 4 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) respondents/plaintiffs that the trial Court vide its order dated 08.03.2019 restrained the defendant/respondent from changing the nature of the suit land by raising any construction thereon, making encroachment and taking forcible possession thereof till further orders. The said order was duly served upon the respondent/defendant through the process serving agency. It was averred that the court had appointed local commissioner whose report is already on record. The Tehsildar Galore visited the spot and demarcated the suit land and land of defendant. 6. In the said demarcation, the defendant was found to have encroached over the suit land to the extent of 1.5 meters and it was also found that the defendant has constructed concrete retaining wall/danga just adjacent to the house of plaintiffs due to which the house has fallen down as he has blocked the flow of rainy and other waters around the house of the applicant/plaintiff and the debris lying in the drain is not being allowed to be removed by the respondent/defendant. In case, the plaintiff is not allowed to remove the debris and danga constructed by him just adjacent to the house of plaintiffs, there is every likelihood of 5 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) same being fallen down. Therefore, it was prayed that the order dated 08.03.2019 may be enforced by providing police assistance. 7. The said application was contested by the petitioner/defendant by filing the reply, whereby, he refuted all the averments as made in the application. Initially, the said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 10.08.2020. 8. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff had approached this Court by filing CMPMO No. 421 of 2020 against the dismissal of the application filed under Section 151 of the CPC for providing police assistance so as to enforce the injunction order dated 08.3.2019. This Court had allowed the petition vide its order dated 10.08.2021 and directed the learned trial Court to ensure that the plaintiffs are provided police assistance to ensure implementation of order dated 08.03.2019. 9. Thereafter, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 23.08.2021, directed the SHO Police Station Sadar Hamirpur to implement order dated 8.3.2019 and to remove debris and pakka/danga/retaining wall constructed by the defendant on the suit land as denoted by khasra No. 974/1 in demarcation report 6 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) dated 18.10.2019 and shown in Aks Shajra Tatima, which is part and parcel of the same. 10 Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned trial Court, the defendant/petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. It is contended by Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the learned trial Court should not have directed the SHO, Police Station Sadar Hamirpur to remove the debris and pakka danga/retaining wall constructed by the defendant/petitioner on the suit land in order to prejudice the rights of the defendant/petitioner. He has further submitted that after accepting the present petition, the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court be quashed and set aside. 12. On the other hand, Ms. Heena Chauhan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has defended the impugned order as passed by learned trial Court. She submits 7 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) that in view of the order as passed by this Court in CMPMO No. 421 of 2020, no relief could be granted to the plaintiff/respondent. She has further submitted that the defendant/petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the scope of interference while determining the point in controversy is very limited and narrow. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scanned the case file. 14. The plaintiffs/respondents have instituted the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants and family members from making any sort of encroachment over the suit land. Further, the plaintiff prayed for restraining the defendant from raising construction and changing nature of the suit land by extension of projection. Further, it has been prayed that defendant be restrained from taking forcible possession of the suit land, in case the defendant succeeds in making encroachment, in that event, a decree for possession by way of demolition has been prayed. 8 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) 15. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs/respondents had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 8.03.2019 passed the injunction order, whereby the defendant was restrained from changing the nature of the suit land, raising any construction, making encroachment thereon and taking forcible possession thereof till further orders. 16. The learned trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner to determine the allegations and counter allegations between the parties. Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Galore on the direction of the learned trial Court visited the spot and demarcated the suit land. In the demarcation, he found the defendant to have constructed a retaining wall adjacent to the house of the plaintiff due to which the house of the plaintiffs had fallen down. Further it was found that the defendant has blocked the flow of rainy water and other water around the house of the plaintiffs and in case the same is not removed, in that event, the house of the plaintiff may fall down. The plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for providing police 9 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) assistance so as to enforce the injunction order dated 8.3.2019. Though, initially the learned trial Court vide its order dated 10.03.2020 dismissed the application. However, the said order was assailed by the plaintiffs/respondents before this Court and this Court after accepting/allowing CMPMO No. 421 of 2020 vide its order dated 10.08.2021, after appreciating the rival contentions of the parties passed the following order:- “5. Alongwith the plaint, plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking therein ad interim injunction. Vide order dated 8.3.2019, learned Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur, restrained the defendant from changing the nature and raising construction of any sort and making any encroachment over the suit land but since despite there being aforesaid restraint order passed by learned Senior Civil Judge Hamirpur, defendant made an attempt to raise construction on the suit land by taking forcible possession of suit property, plaintiff approached the learned court below by way of an application under S.151 CPC, praying therein to provide police assistance to enforce injunction order dated 8.3.2019. In the application, plaintiff averred that though order dated 8.3.2019 was duly served upon the respondent, but yet he is making attempt to raise construction on the suit land. Learned court below having taken note of the aforesaid averments made in the application appointed Tehsildar, Galore as local commissioner, who visited the spot and 10 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) demarcated the suit land. Tehsildar Galore, after having demarcated the land, found defendant to have encroached upon suit land to the extent of 9-00-19 hectares i.e. equivalent to 1.5 metres of suit land, denoted by Khasra No. 974/1 by constructing retaining wall/danga, just adjacent to his house. Local commissioner also reported that defendant had blocked flow of rainy water and other water, around the house of the plaintiffs on the suit land. Since learned court below despite receipt of report of local commission proceeded to dismiss the application of plaintiff for police assistance, plaintiffs were compelled to approach this court in the instant proceedings. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused material available on record vis-à-vis the findings returned by learned court below in the impugned order, this court is in agreement with learned counsel for the plaintiffs that learned court below has not applied its mind, while passing impugned order and has wrongly recorded in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant had blocked flow of rainy water and other water over suit land and has not removed debris from land, nor plaintiffs have moved any application alleging so nor any order, directing the defendant to remove the blockage of flow of rainy water and other water on the suit land and to remove debris/Danga therefrom has been passed till date by the court. 7. If the application for police assistance is perused in its entirety, findings returned in para-8 of the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain being totally contrary to record. Needless to say, application seeking therein police 11 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) assistance came to be filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for implementation of order dated 8.3.2019, whereby admittedly learned court below restrained the defendant from changing nature of suit land, raising any construction thereupon and/or making encroachment thereupon, local commissioner appointed by learned court below, in his report reported that the defendant had encroached upon 9- 00-19 hectares equivalent to 1.5 metres of suit land denoted by 5 Khasra No. 974/1 by constructing Pakka wall of his two storeyed lintel roofed house and Pakka Danga/retaining wall but yet learned court below proceeded to reject the application filed by the plaintiff. Local commissioner appointed by learned court below may not have reported that the defendant blocked flow of rainy water around house of plaintiffs but once it has come in his report that the defendant has encroached upon suit land, by constructing Pakka wall of 2 storeyed house and Pakka Danga/retaining wall, learned court below had no option but to accept the prayer made on behalf of plaintiffs for providing police assistance for implementation of order dated 8.3.2019. 8. Otherwise also, perusal of application seeking police assistance by plaintiffs, nowhere suggests that they were aggrieved on account of flow of rainy water and other water on suit land, rather, they were aggrieved by illegal construction being raised by defendant despite there being restraint order. In the application, petitioner specifically prayed that the defendant be directed to remove the debris and Danga constructed after passing of order dated 8.3.2019. However, it appears that learned court below, while passing order dated 10.8.2020 did not bother at all to 12 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) go through pleadings adduced on record by petitioner and in a hot haste manner, without application of mind, proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner. 9. Very purpose of calling for report of local commissioner by learned court below is /was to ascertain the factum with regard to violation of restraint order passed by learned court below, during pendency of the suit and as such, court below after having received report of local commissioner, ought to have allowed the prayer made on behalf of plaintiffs for police assistance. Since there is urgency in the matter, learned court below could not wait for the objections, if any to be filed by defendant qua demarcation report, which was otherwise for a very limited purpose. 10. Consequently, in view of above, order dated 10.8.2020, Annexure P-7 is quashed and set aside. Application filed by the plaintiffs seeking police assistance is allowed and learned court below is directed to ensure that the plaintiffs are provided police assistance to ensure implementation of order dated 8.3.2019 forthwith. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs undertakes to apprise learned court below with regard to passing of instant order, enabling it to do the needful expeditiously.” 17. This court vide its order dated 10.08.2021, came to the conclusion that the application seeking police assistance came to be filed on behalf of the plaintiff to enforce injunction order dated 8.3.2019. Local Commissioner appointed by the Court below has 13 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) reported that defendant has encroached upon the suit land to the extent 0-00-19 hectares i.e. equivalent to 1.5 meters of the suit land, denoted by Khasra No.974/1 by constructing retaining wall/danga, just adjacent to his house. This court came to conclusion that despite the receipt of report of local commissioner that the defendant has encroached upon the suit land by raising retaining wall, the learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the application for enforcement of the injunction order dated 8.3.2019 with the help of police assistance. It was further held that very purpose of calling for the report of local commissioner by learned court below was to ascertain the factum with regard to violation of the restraint order passed by the learned trial Court. In the application, filed by the respondents/plaintiff, it was specifically prayed that defendant be directed to remove the debris and danga constructed on the suit land after passing of order dated 8.03.2019. 18. Under strict compliance to the order passed by this Court in CMPMO No. 421 of 2020 the trial Court had passed the impugned order. 14 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by this Court in CMPMO No. 421 of 2020 has attained the finality and the said order has not been assailed in any competent court of law. Once this Court has already adjudicated the matter by directing the learned trial court to enforce the injunction order and the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for providing the police assistance was allowed, the only order which could have been passed is the impugned order. 20. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order which has been passed by the learned trial Court. The local commissioner in his report has categorically held that the present defendant/petitioner has encroached upon the suit land to the extent of 0-00-19 hectares i.e. equivalent to 1.5 meters of suit land, denoted by khasra No. 974/1 by constructing retaining wall/danga just adjacent to the house of the plaintiffs. Further, the local commissioner has also reported that the petitioner/defendant had blocked flow of rainy water and other water, around the house of the plaintiffs on the suit land. Therefore, the learned 15 ( 2026:HHC:18418 ) trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 23.08.2021 and there is no illegality and infirmity in the same. 21. Consequently, the learned trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order, as such, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge 15th May, 2026. (jai)