The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or material irregularities; it does not authorize interference with factual findings, and a decree-holder is entitled to enforce the judicial order in its letter and spirit without being frustrated by frivolous objections.

Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

Respondents No.5 to 8 are proceeded against ex-pate.

Romesh Verma, Judge

Civil Revision No.185 of 2025

1. The present petition arises out of the order as passed by learned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., dated 26.09.2024, whereby the objections as filed by the present petitioners under the provisions of Section 47 of CPC have been ordered to be dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/decree holder filed a suit for mandatory injunction in the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Nahan on 04.06.1993. The learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Nahan vide its judgment and decree dated 21.09.1999 decreed the suit as filed by the plaintiff by passing a decree of mandatory injunction and also for permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the defendants were directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorized construction raised by the defendants in the shape of huge outer gate in the entrance, a staircase and bathroom-cum-toilet, the room preventing the approach to the property of the plaintiff from the common passage adjoining to latrines comprising of Khasra Nos..202, 221/1, 221/2, 222 and 225/1, measuring 105-79 Sq. meters, situated at Mohal Naya Bazar, Nahan and further the defendants were restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering or trespassing in the property of the plaintiff comprised in Khasra No.216/2, 217, 268, total measuring 270-63 Sq Meters, situated in Mohal Naya Bazar, Nahan, with the costs of the suit. The report of the Local Commissioner Ext.PW 4/A and mutation Ext. PW/4/A/2 were ordered to be form part of the decree sheet.

3. The JDs/petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree as passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Nahan, before the District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan on 23.12.1999. Learned District Judge vide its judgment and decree dated 12.09.2000 partly accepted the appeal and the judgment and decree as passed by learned trial Court was partly modified. While dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for demolition of Iron Gate in front of the property from Naya Bazar and the construction of staircase, bathroom-cum-toilet and the water tank in the common deori, the remaining part of the decree of the lower Court is kept intact. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction was allowed to the extent that the defendants/JDs were directed to demolish/remove the room 12 x 13 feet constructed by them in the common passage of the parties and thus, blocking the entrance of the plaintiff to the property fallen to his share and to remove the debris/malba thrown in the vacant site of the property of the plaintiff within three months from the date of passing of the judgment and decree. Further, the defendants were restrained from interfering in the lawful and peaceful use of the property fallen to the share of the plaintiff as well as the property kept for common use of the parties in any manner.

4. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants filed two regular second appeals being RSA Nos.633 of 2000 and 643 of 2000 and the decree holder filed cross objections bearing No.308 of 2001 before this Court. Vide judgment dated 02.11.2006, the regular second appeals preferred by the defendants were ordered to be dismissed and further the cross objections filed by the dec