In a dispute between co-sharers where partition is pending, a status quo order regarding the nature and possession of the property is appropriate, and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or manifest injustice.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. t

For the petitioners : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent : None.

Virender Singh, Judge

The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Chourt by filing the present petition under Article 227 ogf the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 11.11.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Kandaghat, District Solan H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court’), in CMA No. 29-K/6 of 2024, which was filed in Civil Suit No. 09-K/1 of 2024, titled as “Varinder Vs Anoop Kumar & Others”.

By way of the order dated 11.11.2024, the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C., directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature, ownership and possession of the suit land, till the pendency of the litigation. .

This order has been upheld by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-1 Solan, H.P. (Hhereinafter referred to as the “first Appellate Court’) on 08.10.2025.

Parties to the present petition, hereinafter, are being referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

Brief facts leuading to the filing of the present petition, as borne oout from the record, may be summed up, as under:-

5.1 Plaintiff Varinder has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants for the following relief:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that suit of the plaintiff may please be decreed with costs and decree for permanent, perpetual and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the valuable trees consisting of Baan etc., changing its nature by raising construction of any type, causing loss and damage to the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 14/20 bearing Khasra No. 214 measuring 12-05 bighas situated in village Jhaja, Hadbast No. 451, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. vide jamabandi for the year 2017-2018, and also from occupying the best portion of the suit land and adjacent to Jhaja – Solan road through themselves, their family members, agents, servants, contractors, etc. whosoever in any manner whatsoever till the suit land is partitioned by metes and bounds may please be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Or any other relief deemed fit in the case may also be awarded in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.” .

Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has also been filed for the relief that during the pendency of the suit, respondents may be restrained from cutting and removing the valuable trees, change the nature of the suit land by raising construction or causing loss or damage to tthe suit land till the same is partitioned by metes and bounds.

The learned trial Court has allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, vide order dated 11.11.2024, after considering the fact that the partiehs to the lis are co-sharers and partition of the same hgad not taken place. Consequently, the parties were idirected to maintain status quo qua nature, ownership and possession of the suit land, till the pendency of the litigation.

The learned first Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, vide judgment dated 08.10.2025.

Now, the defendants are before this Court. It is the admitted stand of the parties to the lis that the suit land is joint between the parties i.e. plaintiff, defendants and other joint owners. However, according to the stand taken by the defendants, they are in separate possession., as per their share, over the suit land.

It is also the case of the defendHants that partition proceedings are pending between the parties. In this regard, relevant portion of para 3 of the written statement, is reproduced as under:-

“3. ……………. The defendants also applied for the partition of the land situated in Mauza Jhaja in the y