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

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

RFA/147/2015



##PAGE1##

1 ( 2025:HHC:44894 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

RFA No. 147 of 2015

Reserved on: 03.12.2025

Date of decision: 22.12.2025

________________________________________________

Sandeep Gupta & others

…..Appellants.

Versus f

State of H.P. & others

……Respondents.

________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the appellants: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior

Advocate, with Mr. Pranjal

o Munjal, Advocate.

For the resCpondents: Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu,

Deputy Advocate General.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the

appellants, who are legal heirs of the original plaintiffs before

the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “the

appellants”) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(for shot “CPC”) against judgment and decree, dated

12.01.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II,

Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to “the

learned Trial Court), in Civil Suit No. 3ADJ-II/1 of 2014/2007,

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

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 03:54:38 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2 ( 2025:HHC:44894 )

whereby the suit filed by the original plaintiffs for recovery of

damages against the defendants (respondents herein) was

dismissed.

2(a). The brief facts of the case are that initially the

original plaintiffs filed a suit before this Co urt, but it was later

on sent to District Judge, Solan, as the pecuniary jurisdiction

of the Courts was enhanced.

2(b). As per the plaintiff, they were partners of M/s

S.S. Enterprises andu they sought a decree for damages in

the sum of Rs.2o0,50,000/-, i.e. Rs.13,50,000/-, being the cost

of plot, RCs.5,00,000/- as damages for litigation expenses,

consequential financial loss, mental agony, pain suffered by

them and Rs.2,00,000/- as general and special damages

alongwith interest @ 18% per annum against the defendants

i jointly and severally on the ground that they had formed a

registered firm in the name and style of M/s S.S. Enterprises

and had approached the defendants for allotment of

industrial plot at Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for running

business of readymade garments. The plaintiffs further

averred that vide letter dated 08.03.1995, plot No. 85,

measuring 900 square meters, situated in Industrial Area,

Baddi, District Solan, was allotted to the plaintiffs by the

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 03:54:38 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3 ( 2025:HHC:44894 )

defendants and possession thereof was handed over to them

on 14.03.1995 by the Assistant Engineer of the defendants.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs got approved site plan for raising

building and also obtained water connection and when they

were raising construction and laying f oundation for the

sheds, defendants served them with a show cause notice.

The said show cause notice was replied by the plaintiffs, vide

reply letter, dated 26.12.1995, whereby they apprised

defendant No. 4 theu eventualities, which prevented them

from completingo the construction within time. However,

during the Cmonth of February, 1998, when the attorney of the

plaintiffs visited the spot, he found M/s Cassette and

Rubinetteria, another business establishment, in possession

there-over.

i 2(c). The plaintiffs, being aggrieved, preferred a civil

suit in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

Nalagarh, which was partly decreed, vide judgment and

decree dated 29.06.2004, and the action of the defendants in

cancelling their plot was held illegal and void. However, the

learned Court also held that the plaintiffs were at liberty to

seek appropriate relief for the hardship caused to them.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs served the defendants with legal

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 03:54:38 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

4 ( 2025:HHC:44894 )

notice, dated 23.08.2004, under Section 80 CPC, calling

upon them to allot a plot of the same dimension in the same

industrial area to them and also to pay a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- as damages suffered by them for undergoing

mental a

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