##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No.108 of 2025

Date of Decision : 30.12.2025

Medisys Biotech Pvt. Ltd.

…… Appellant

Versus

Ramesh Kumar

……Respondent

Coram: t

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?1 u

For the Appellant : Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate.

For the respondent : None.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral )

hThe Appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the

Codge of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and

decree dated 29.06.2024, passed by learned Additional District Judge,

Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal (Registration)

No.20-N/13 of 2023, titled Medisys Biotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ramesh Kumar,

whereby the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2019, passed by learned

Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil

Suit No.41/1 of 2016, have been 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.

1

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

::: Downloaded on - 14/01/2026 23:07:56 :::CIS

2

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-

appellant is the owner in possession of the suit land bearing

Khata/Khatauni No. 4/5, comprising Khasra Nos. 842/228/1 and

842/228/2 (Khasra number appears to have been incorrectly mentioned

as 842/828/2 in the plaint), Kitas 2, measuring 3- 19 bighas, situated in

Mauza Moginand, Tehsil Nahan. The suit lanod is stated to be a built up

area being factory and structure thereon and also vacant land. It was

alleged that the defendant-respondent, being a complete stranger to the

suit land and having no right,u title or interest in the same, threatened to

forcibly dispossess the plaintiff. It was further alleged that on 27.06.2016,

the defendant forcibly entered the suit land and started digging the vacant

land and, upon being confronted by the plaintiff's servants, became violent

and threatened to take forcible possession. A decree for permanent

injunction was sought to restrain the defendant from interfering with the

suit land, with an alternative prayer for a decree of possession in case of

H forcible dispossession during the pendency of the suit.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written

statement raising preliminary objections inter alia regarding maintainability

and suppression of facts, specifically that the suit land and the defendant's

land abut each other. On merits, while the plaintiff's ownership and

possession were not specifically disputed, the defendant's case was that

the plaintiff had encroached upon a portion of his adjoining land and that a

boundary dispute existed between the parties.

::: Downloaded on - 14/01/2026 23:07:56 :::CIS

3

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed

by the learned Trial Court on 7.05.2018 :-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent

prohibitory injunction, as prayed for?...OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff in the alternative, is also entitled to

a decree of possession by way of mandatory injunction,

as prayed?...OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as

alleged? ...OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts

from the Court, theretfore, not entitled to discretionary

relief of injunction, as alleged?...OPD

5. Whether there is a boundary dispute and the plaintiff

has encroached upon the land of defendant and the

dispute can be settled by carrying out demarcation of

suit prooperty, as alleged?...OPD

6. Relief.”

6. The plaintiff examined two witnesses and exhibited

documents, including the Jamabandi and a Board resolution. The

defgendant did not lead any evidence and was proceeded against ex parte.

iDuring proceedings, an application by the defendant for appointment of a

Local Commissioner was allowed. The report of the Local Commissioner

dated 26.04.2017 was accepted by the Trial Court. Vide judgment and

decr