IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No.295 of 2022 Date of Decision : 27.11.2025 Kheera Ram (deceased) through LRs. and others …… Appellants Versus Randhir Dhadwal and another ……Respondents Coram: t The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting u ?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Virender, Advocate, vice Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral )

The Appellants, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal (Registration) No. 206 of 2019, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2019, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala, District Kangra. in Civil Suit No. 02/2010, were affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned Trial Court.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the plaintiff, a permanent resident of Shyam NPagar, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., was running a vegetable shop on a small portion of land measuring 2.25 x 10 feet for over thirty years, paying municipal tax (Teh-Bazaari) to the Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala. The suit land, as per revenue record, is owned by certain people but possessed by the Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff pleaded that his possession was peaceful, sanctioned by the Munticipal Corporation through a resolution permitting him to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and to cover the 'Thara' with tin-sheets. The defendants, particularly defendant no.1, a stranger from Una, started interfering with the plaintiff's possession, threatening to demolish the shop and throw away his articles. The plaintiff therefore filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from such interference.

4. The defendants contested the suit, with defendant No.1 iasserting that the plaintiff's shop was on a public street/path, causing a hindrance and nuisance to the free movement of vehicles and pedestrians. Defendant No.2, the Municipal Corporation admitted that the plaintiff was paying rent but denied any threat or intention to dispossess him.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 01.06.2013:

“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as alleged? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction as alleged? OPP

3. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP

4. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 of CPC? OPD-2

6. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit?

OPD

7. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

8. Whether suit is barred by provision of limitation? -OPD.

9. Relief.”

8. After trial, the Courrt dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his case for injunction.

9. Aggrieoved by the said decision, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal, contCending inter alia that the Trial Court's findings on issues No.1, 2, and 6 were against the weight of evidence; that the Court failed to appreciate dochuments like the 'Aks Tatima' and the Municipal Corporation’s resolution (Ex. PW2/A) which proved the allotment; that the Court travelled beyond the pleadings by questioning the exact location of the allotted site when defendant No.1 had not disputed it; that the statement of PW2, the Municipal Corporation Officer corroborated the plaintiff's lawful possession; that the finding th