Interim relief cannot be granted in the guise of final relief, and inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to grant substantive final remedies before the trial's conclusion and evidence evaluation.

Romesh Verma, Judge

The present petition arises out of the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Case No. 94 of 2016, titled Vidya Devi vs. Ved Ram, decided on 26.10.2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for implementation of the order dated 05.08.2016, directing to demolish the construction raised by the respondent, has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. It was averred in the plaint that land measuring 01.05-00 Bigha comprised in Khasra No. 857, contained in Khatauni No. 317 of Khata No. 188, situated in Tosh, Phati Manikaran Kothi Kanawar, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. as incorporated in Jamabandi for the year 2008-2009, is recorded in the joint ownership and possession of the pl.aintiffs and defendant alongwith other co-sharers.

3. It was averred in the plaint that initially there was a two and half storied slate roofed house of Poshi Devi, plaintiff No.1, and in the month of November 2001, the same was gutted in fire, and in its place, plainrtiff No.1 constructed a single storied CGI sheet roofed shed measuring 15 Hath x 13 Hath and the same is being used by her as grass and wooden store and rest of the suit land is vacant on the spot and is cultivable.

4. It has further been averred that the defendant is a very rich and influential person, who by taking undue advantage of this fact is openly threatening to grab the most valuable portion of the suit land facing towards the aforesaid agricultural path and that too in excess of his share and to this effect he is collecting construction material over the suit land in order to raise construction over the same, that too, in excess of his share, without getting the same lawfully partitioned, of which he has no right. The aforesaid act on the part of the defendant is highly wrongful and illegal.

5. In this background, suit was filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner seeking a decree by restraining the defendant from raising any type of construction over the suit land and further from changing the nature of the aforesaid land in any manner and further for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction.

6. The suit was contested by the defendant by raising various objections such as maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel and that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands etc.

7. On merits, it was srtated that in the fire outbreak, almost all houses of Village Tosh were gutted in fire. The defendant had two residential houses and one agricultural house in village Tosh. Out of these two residential houses, one was ances tral house of Ved Ram, the defendant, that existed near the suit land but on the other land, there was another residential house, which was individually owned by him, existed on the North-Eastern portion of the suit land abutting both the aforesaid two paths running alongwith its Northern and Eastern sides. The third house was agricultural house which also existed outside the suit land but quite near to it. All these three houses of the defendant and house of the plaintiff, alongwith other houses of the co-villagers, were gutted in the fire