Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Raj Kumar & Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Others – Respondents
CMPMO No. 590 of 2024
Decided On : 30-04-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Petitioners sought to maintain status quo on suit land pending application - Plaintiffs claimed settled possession and challenged entries in record of rights - Court found no justification for interference as plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice from non-extension of interim order. (Paras 1, 9, 22, 24, 25)
(B) Jurisdiction under Article 227 - High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their authority and not to correct errors of law or fact. (Paras 24, 25)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought relief to maintain status quo on land claimed to be in their settled possession, which was recorded in the ownership of the defendants. The trial court had issued an interim order to maintain status quo, but subsequent orders did not extend this order, leading to alleged construction by defendants.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs did not bring the alleged violation of the interim order to the trial court's attention and failed to demonstrate any prejudice suffered.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in not extending the interim order and whether the High Court should intervene under Article 227.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs' failure to act on the alleged violation of the interim order undermined their claim for intervention, and the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is not to correct every error but to ensure lower courts act within their authority.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Satyen Vaidya, J.)
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners for following reliefs:-
“i) That the petitioners & respondents may kindly be directed to maintain status quo and suit land may kindly be preserved during the pendency of Civil Misc. Application No. 1214 of 2024 titled as Raj Kumar versus Municipal Council Hamirpur under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2.
ii) That the respondents be directed to not to dispossess the petitioners from the suit land during the pendency of the Civil Misc. Application No. 1214 of 2024.
iii) That the trial court be directed to decide the Civil Misc. Application No. 1214 of 2024 i.e. application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 in time bound manner”.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 459 of 2024, pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Hamirpur. The suit has been filed in respect of land measuring 6112-85 square meters, comprised in Khata No. 502 Min, Khatauni No. 698, Khasra Nos. 1701/228, 2221/231 and 2220/228, situated in Up-Mohal, Hamirpur, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. (for short the ‘suit land’).
3. The plaintiffs are claiming their settled possession on the suit land, which otherwise is recorded in the ownership and possession of defendant No.2. The entries in the record of rights have been challenged as wrong, illegal and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiffs. The case as setup by the plaintiffs is that the suit land has been coming in continuous possession of the plaintiffs since time of their forefathers. The suit land was wrongly shown to be vested in the local body under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act, 1975. In alternative, the plaintiffs have raised the claim to the title of the suit land by way of adverse possession.
4. The cause of action alleged in the plaint is that defendants No.1 and 2 allegedly were trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land by raising construction thereon. In this backdrop, reliefs for decree of declaration, permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunctions have been claimed.
5. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiffs have also filed an application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ‘Code’), which has been registered as CMA No. 1214 of 2024 before the learned trial Court.
6. On 10.9.2024, the learned trial Court passed the following order in CMA No. 1214 of 2024:-
“The present application file is taken up today, in view of the order dated 7.9.2024 passed in an application under Section 151 CPC for early hearing.
Let, summon be issued to respondent No.1 on filing PF and CA within 7 days for 24.9.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before Court that the respondent No.1 is raising construction and thus, trying to dispossess the applicant from the suit land. It is further submitted that the purpose of filing the suit will be frustrated if interim injunction order is not passed in favour of the applicant.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the record at hand carefully.
In view of the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua construction, possession and nature of the suit land till next date of hearing.”
7. The application thereafter was listed on 24.9.2024 and the following order was passed:-
“Learned ADA for the state has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 who has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.7.2024. However, inadvertently the respondent No.2 has been proceeded ex-parte in this matter and the respondent No.2 is allow to join the proceedings in the present matter.
Today, reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1. Copy supplied. Time prayed for filing rejoinder. Prayer considered and allowed.
Let, file be listed for filing rejoinder and reply on behalf of respondent No.2 for 1.10.2024.”
8. On the adjourned date i.e. 1.10.
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their authority, not to correct errors of law or fact.
The court emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 3, Order 39, which mandates the court to give notice of the application for inte....
Grant of injunction – Wherever proceedings are under CPC and forum is Civil Court, availability of a remedy under CPC, will deter High Court from exercising its Power of Superintendence.
The scope of a status quo order is ambiguous and requires clear evidence for violations, as courts will not intervene without established proof of breach.
The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where there is a gross failure of justice or grave injustice. Th....
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit a re-evaluation of evidence but only addresses substantial legal errors affecting justice.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, not to correct mere errors of law or fact.
The High Court under Article 227 does not reconsider factual errors of inferior courts unless findings are perverse or unjust, maintaining supervisory authority without delving into case merits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
