IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 392 of 2007 Reserved on: 12.03.2026 Date of Decision: 24.04.2026 HPSEB & others ...Appellants Versus Rakesh ...Respondent _____________________________________

Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the appellants : Ms Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate C with Mr Mohit Sankhyan, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge H The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, H.P. (Learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court)

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

were set aside. (For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial court.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the land comprised in Khewat No. 125, Khatauni No. 195, Khasra No. 1336 /1287 measuring 2-4 bighas situated in Chowk Batewari Pargna. Shantha, Tehsil Chop al, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’) by excavating it for the construction of the building or in any other manner whatsoever and decree of a mandatory Hinjunction directing the defendants to demolish and remove the structure raised upon the suit land. It was asserted that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff. The defendants started excavating and developing the suit land for constructing a building without any right to do so. The plaintiff obtained the demarcation of the suit land and found that the defendants had excavated the suit land without any right to do so. He requested the defendants not to carry out any excavation over the suit land, but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above. .

3. The suit is opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objection regardfing the plaintiff being estopped to file the present suit by his act, conduct, omission lapses and silence, the suit being bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties, lack of locus standi and the maintainability, the suit being bad for want of material particulars, and the suit having not been properly valued for Court fees and jurisdiction. The contents of the plaint were denied on the merits. It was specifically denied that the defendants raised any construction over the suit land. It was asserted that the defendants completed the construction of 22 KV substation over Khasra No. 1445/1287/1, measuring 01-18 bigahs owned by the State of H.P., after getting the land demarcated from the revenue agency. One Madan Sharma also issued a notice to the defendants that the construction was raised over his land bearing Khasra No. 842. The claim made by the plaintiff is without any basis. No cause of action accrued to the plaintiff. Hence, it was prayed that the present suit be dismissed.

4. No replication was filed.

5. The Ld. trial Court framed the following issues on

04/06/2005.

1. Whether the p laintiff is entitled for the relief of a permanentt prohibitory injunction as prayed for?

OPP r

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of a mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his act and conduct? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-

joinder of necessary parties, and also for the cause of action? OPD.

H 6. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPP.

7. Relief.

6. The parti