Point of Law: Power under Article 227 of Constitution of India is to be exercised where there is no evidence at all to justify or finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion arrived at by Courts.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Sharma, J.)

1. Instant petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India lays challenge to judgment dated 11.3.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge (CBI Court) Shimla, Himachal Pradesh camp at Rohru in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 11-R/14 of 2020, affirming order dated 22.8.2020 passed by Civil Judge, Court No. II, Rohru, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in CMA No. 65-06 of 2020 in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2020, titled Rottam Lal v. Satya Devi, whereby learned trial Court, while allowing an application filed under Order XXXIX, rule 1 and 2 by respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘plaintiff’), directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that date qua nature, possession and construction over suit land.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit against the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter, ‘defendant’) (Annexure P-1), for permanent prohibitory injunction with regard to land bearing Khasra Nos. 658, 660 and 1665/659 comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 195/379 to 389 situate in revenue Chak Sunda-Bhonda, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, averring therein that the parties are co-owners of suit land as per Jamabandi for the year 2008-09 and till the time, same is partitioned in accordance with law, nobody can be permitted to raise construction on the suit land. Plaintiff averred that in the year 2015, defendant filed a suit in the court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Rohru, i.e. Civil Suit No. 88/1 of 2015, titled Satya Devi v. Kanwar Singh, for permanent prohibitory injunction against the present respondent, and some other co-owners with respect to aforesaid land, on the ground that since, suit property is yet to be partitioned by metes and bounds, co-owners, be it plaintiff or defendant cannot be permitted to raise construction thereupon. Plaintiff further averred that the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 18.4.2019 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Rohru thereby restraining present plaintiff from raising any construction over suit land, till the time, partition is effected in accordance with law. Plaintiff averred that till date, no partition of suit land has taken place as such, defendant, who at one point of time, had raised objection with regard to joint ownership qua the suit land, cannot be permitted to raise construction till the time, suit land is partitioned in accordance with law. Plaintiff further averred that the defendant is trying to raise construction over suit land and has already raised pillars on some portion of suit land, as such, she is required to be restrained by way of injunction. Plaintiff also filed an application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC alongwith suit, for issuance of ad interim injunction. Prayer made in the application on behalf of plaintiff came to be resisted on behalf of defendant, who in her written statement to the plaint and reply to stay application, though admitted factum with regard to passing of judgment and decree dated 18.4.2019 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Rohru, in Civil Suit No. 88/1 of 2015, titled Satya Devi v. Kanwar Singh, whereby plaintiff herein was restrained from raising construction over the suit land, till the time property is partitioned in accordance with law, but categorically stated that despite there being injunction order passed by learned Senior Civil Judge vide judgment and decree 18.4.2019, plaintiff has raised a multi-story building upon the suit land, as such, he cannot stop other co-owners, including defendant, from raising construction over suit land, which is yet to portioned, especially when co-owners are already in possession of specific portions of suit land. It has been averred in the written statement and reply to the application, that already execution petition under Order XXI rule 32 CPC stands filed against plaintiff for execution of judgment and decree dated 18.4.2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 88-1 of 2015.

3. Learned