SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
M/s Metal Closures Private Limited – Petitioner 
Versus 
State of Himachal Pradesh and others – Respondent 
CWP No.16388 of 2025
Decided on 16-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Saurav Rattan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General

Writ petition not maintainable when civil suit pending on same cause, as civil court offers efficacious interim remedy under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Petitioner praying for removal of illegal obstruction on road to factory premises and maintenance of law and order at site - Already filed civil suit on same cause of action - Cannot maintain parallel writ petition claiming no other efficacious remedy - Civil court remedy under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 available and efficacious - High Court not to be converted into court subservient to civil court for interim relief - Petition dismissed with liberty to approach civil court. (2, 4)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing authorities to remove illegal obstruction caused on road leading to factory premises as per approved plan, ensuring unobstructed ingress and egress, and to maintain law and order preventing interference with industrial operations - Documents showed prior civil suit filed on identical cause.

Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to seek interim relief from civil court as advised; pending applications disposed of.

Issues: Whether writ petition maintainable when civil suit already instituted on same cause; whether civil court remedy under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 is non-efficacious.

Ratio Decidendi: Party cannot pursue dual remedies on same issue by filing civil suit and then writ petition - Civil court provisions for interim relief render writ remedy inappropriate - Court refrains from imposing costs considering petition filed on counsel's advice.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. mandamus sought to remove illegal obstruction and ensure site security. (Para 2)
2. petition dismissed without costs; liberty to seek civil court interim relief. (Para 3 , 4)

Judgment :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

1. “Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direction respondents No.2 to 4 to take immediate action on the petitioner’s complaint dated 18.09.2025 an to ensure removal of the illegal obstruction on the road at Khasra No.1018/346/176 situated in Mauja Moginand Tehsil Nahan District Sirmaur, H.P. caused by respondent No.5, thereby restoring unobstructed ingress and egress to the petitioner’s factory premises as per approved plan.

2. Direct respondents No.2 to 4 to maintain law and order at the site and to prevent recurrence of any illegal obstruction or interference with the petitioner’s industrial operations.”

2. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrate that on the same cause, the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit titled M/s Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd. and Ravinder Kumar and another. This Court fails to understand as to how the petitioner can maintain two remedies i.e., firstly by approaching a Civil Court on the same cause and thereafter by filing a writ petition and that too by stating in the petition that he has no other efficacious remedy. The remedy before the Civil Court is not a non-efficacious remedy, as was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE are there, which can be invoked by a party which wants any interim from a Civil Court. This is no way that on one hand a party files a Civil Suit on the same cause and thereafter on the same issue, approaches the High Court also, converting the High Court into a Court subservient to a Civil Court for the grant of the interim relief, which otherwise is to be considered by the Civil Court.

3. Though, the Court was intending to impose cost upon the petitioner, but Mr. Saurav Rattan, Advocate, submits that as the petition has been filed on his advice, the same be not imposed.

4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, as prayed for, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Civil Court for such interim relief, as the petitioner may be advised. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top