Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Manoj Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Murari Lal Gupta – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. joint ancestral house protected from unauthorized demolition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. mutation challenged as fraudulent; will confers possession. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. interim status quo granted by trial court. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. appellate reversal prompts high court petition. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. conflicting arguments on status quo restoration. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. suppression of facts violates clean hands doctrine. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. unchallenged will establishes prima facie title. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. article 227 limits review; petition dismissed. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
Romesh Verma, J.
The present petition arises out of judgment dated 07.05.2025, as passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, whereby the appeal as preferred by the defendants/respondents filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 of CPC was allowed and the order as passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Hamirpur, dated 3rd February, 2025, was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/ petitioner filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Hamirpur, on 14th August, 2024, for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction against the de
Suppression of revenue proceedings setting aside relied-upon mutation constitutes unclean hands, disentitling temporary injunction; High Court under Article 227 will not re-appreciate evidence or int....
The need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for granting injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Amendments to pleadings post-trial commencement are not permissible unless due diligence is shown, ensuring they do not alter the fundamental character of the case.
Co-sharer suppressing own construction on joint land approaches without clean hands and cannot restrain others from constructing on their exclusive portion; injunction requires proof of prejudice or ....
In second appeals under CPC Section 100, no interference with concurrent findings of fact unless substantial question of law or perversity; co-sharers may develop joint property if partition not impo....
The court established that for a temporary injunction, a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience must all be satisfied.
The court upheld that a failure to appeal a counter-claim can invoke the principles of res judicata and waive any rights to contest the opposing judgment.
High Court in second appeal under CPC Section 100 cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact unless perverse or involving substantial question of law; co-sharer construction on joint land not ouster ....
Point of Law : Grant of mandatory injunction is not prohibited in all cases if a clear prima facie material is placed which justifies a finding that status quo may be altered by one of the parties if....
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court can overturn lower court decisions if those decisions reflect procedural errors or ignore critical facts pertaining to ownership and possession.
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
