Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, J
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
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 ar
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
