IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 234 of 2018 Reserved on : 09.04.2026 Date of Decision: 24.04.2026 ____________________________________________H________

Kali Dass ...Petitioner.

Versus Arvind Kumar …..Respondent.

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. P.S.Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

__________________________________________________

Romesh Verma , Judge The present petition arises out of the judgment dated

23.11.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge- Sirmaur, District H.P., whereby an appeal preferred by the present respondent has been allowed and the order dated 05.09.2017 as passed by learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh (Camp at Sarahan), District Sirmaur, H.P. has been set-aside.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present respondent Arvind Kumar filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh, Camp at Sarahan, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P. It was averred in the paint that the

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

plaintiff is co-owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 4/4, plots 20, measuring 71.08 bighas, situated in Village Chompa Dharon, P.O Jaiher, Tehsil Pacchad, District Sirmour, H.P. The suit land is unpartitioned between the parties. Therefore, the defendafnt has got no right, title or interest to occupy the best portion of the suit land by dispossessing the plaintiff forciblyt and to change the nature of the suit land by raising construction with the help of the labourers over the suit land.

3. It was averred that the defendant on 05.06.2017 started raising construction over the suit land with the help of the labourers. Though, the plaintiff requested the defendant not to indulge in the said illegal activities but he did not pay any heed to the request as made by the plaintiff. Therefore, decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering, changing the nature of the suit land by raising construction over the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 4/4, plot 20, measuring 71.08 bighas, situated in Village Chompa Dharon, P.O Jaiher, Tehsil Pacchad, District Sirmour, H.P. was sought from the learned Trial Court.

4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with section 151 CPC restraining the defendant from interfering, raising construction, changing the nature of the suit land or dispossessing the applicant from the suit land during the pendefncy of the suit.

5. The defendant/petitioner filed written statement by raising various preliminary objetctions with respect to the maintainability, cause of action, estoppel etc. It was averred that the plaintiff and his father and family members, who are living together, are raising new constructions over the suit land in an irrigated portion and are also having old house in the suit land.

The defendant has got no house over the suit land.

6. It was averred that the plaintiff has put lintel over the new construction existing on the suit land on 13.06.2017 without the implied or express consent of the other co-owners including the defendant. Plaintiff has not mentioned regarding the existence of his house over the suit land and wants to restrain the defendants from constructing the house.

7. It was averred that the plaintiff has already occupied the best portion of the suit land and has raised dairy farm by converting the land use and has already constructed three Polly houses and three water tanks over the suit land. He is also raising construction over the suit land and has got old Abadi. Defendant is having 1/4th share over the suit land which is measuring 17.17 bighas and he is raising construction over the vacant portion of the suit land, which is a nfegligible portion as compared to the total land.

8. To the similar effe