Procedural provisions, such as those under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) CPC, are handmaidens of justice and should be interpreted liberally to prioritize the discovery of truth, provided the opposite party is granted a fair opportunity to contest the Evidence through cross-examination.

Romesh Verma, Judge

The present petition arises out of the order dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., whereby, an application filed by the defendant/applicant under the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC has been allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against one Sh. Udey Prakash and Smt. Padmini Devi before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P.

3. As per the averments as made in the plaint, it has been averred that the defendants are successors and rulers of the Sirmaur estate who have got the exclusive ownership of Khasra No. 71, 72, 73, 75 alongwith other Khasra numbers vide partition mutation No. 6 dated 13.12.2014 duly entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2012-2013. They are not residents of the State of H.P. and have no interest in the suit land, knowing fully that the suit land is in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff on the spot. It is further averred that the defendants, on 14.10.2016, brought JCB machines and dispossessed the plaintiff, and started leveling and cutting the suit land illegally. The defendants also destroyed the orchard of the plaintiff and removed building material lying nearby the suit land. When the defendants were confronted and requested to stop interfering with the suit land, they refused to do so and openly asserted that they had dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land. Therefore, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference over the suit land was sought by the present plaintiff.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants by raising preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability, under valuation, bonafide etc. On merits, the allegations as leveled in the plaint were refuted and it was denied that the defendants are not in possession or has no interest on the suit land. It was specifically denied that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land. The defendant No.1 is in possession and in complete control of the property and is in the process of developing the property. It was denied that defendants dispossessed the plaintiff, started the work of leveling the land and destroyed any orchard over the suit land. The defendants denied all the allegations as levelled in the plaint and sought dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff filed replication and reiterated the averments as made in the plaint. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Civil Suit was filed on 17.10.2016 and the written statement was filed by the defendants on 08.02.2017. The learned trial Court framed issues on 17.4.2017. It is an admitted fact between the parties that along with the suit an application Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was filed and the said application was dismissed initially by the learned trial Court, however, in the appeal, the First Appellate Court set aside the said order and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted. Against the judgment as passed by the First Appellate Court, CMPMO No.449 of 2018 is still pending in the proceedings under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

6. The record of the suit was summoned by this Court in said CMPMO No.449 of 2018 vide its order dated 09th of September 2019. The said case was listed for consideration before this Court on 15.05.2025 and vide its