Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2047

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Romesh Verma, J
Kahan Chand And Sons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Chand Sood – Respondent
CMPMO No.418 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.K. Bawa, Abhinav Thakur
For the Respondents: Bhupender Gupta, Seema Sood, Anil Chauhan, Tejasvi Dogra

A civil suit against a Municipal Corporation for acts done in pursuance of the Act is not maintainable without serving a mandatory two-month notice as per Section 392, and courts should not restrain statutory authorities from performing public safety duties regarding dilapidated buildings.

Headnote:(A) Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 - Section 258(2), 258(5), 383, 392 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 41 - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 - Suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against notice issued by Municipal Corporation for demolition of dilapidated building - Maintainability - Requirement of mandatory notice under Section 392 of the Act - In absence of such notice, suit is liable to be dismissed - Appellate Court rightly set aside the order of Trial Court. (Paras 6, 24, 26, 27)

(B) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference - High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal - Jurisdiction is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law - Not to be used to substitute judgment of subordinate court. (Paras 16, 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is a tenant of a building in Shimla which was declared dangerous and unsafe for human habitation by the Municipal Corporation based on an expert committee report. The Corporation issued notice for demolition and disconnection of amenities. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction without serving the mandatory two-month notice required under Section 392 of the Act. The trial court allowed the interim injunction, which was reversed by the first appellate court.

Findings of Court:
The suit was bad for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 392 of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. The court also held that under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, a civil court cannot restrain a statutory authority from discharging its duties in accordance with the law, especially when the building is found to be in a dilapidated and unsafe condition.

Issues: Whether the suit was maintainable without the mandatory notice under Section 392 of the Act; whether the appellate court committed a jurisdictional error; and whether the interim injunction was rightly dissolved.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit instituted against a Corporation without complying with the mandatory notice of two months as per Section 392 of the Act is not maintainable. Furthermore, a civil court cannot grant an injunction that prevents a statutory body from performing its duties towards public safety, particularly when the building is medically/structurally certified as unsafe.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. court summary of proceedings and pleadings regarding demolition notices. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments concerning the appealability of interim orders and scope of interference. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. scope of high court jurisdiction under article 227. (Para 15 , 16)
4. mandatory notice requirements and limitations on issuing injunctions against statutory authorities. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)

Whether approved for reporting?

Romesh Verma, Judge

The present petition arises out of the order, as passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Shimla, H.P., dated 30.11.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the present respondents/defendants has been allowed and the order as passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.8, District Shimla, H.P. dated 23.07.2022 has been set aside, whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.8, District Shimla, H.P. on 27.08.2019. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is the tenant under M/s Puran Chand Ramesh Chand since 1952. The terms of tenancy were renewed w.e.f. 01.01.1997 vide agreement dated 10.03.1999 and the rent was increased exorbitantly by the landlords/respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner/plaintiff has been in peaceful possession of the property since the creation of tenancy. The building known as 114/2 Lower Bazaar, Shimla, is four-story structure under the occupation of other tenants. The plaintiff is occupying the third floor and the uppermost floor. In January 2016, partial portion of the building was damaged, but was immediately restored by the tenants and rest portion of the building i.e. 114/2 Lower Bazaar Shimla was not damaged. Defendants No.4 to 6, in order to harass and dispossess the plaintiff and other tenants, filed a false and frivolous civil suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, which was later on transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla. The plaintiff was granted a specific right by the landlord to carry out the repairs in the premises under his occupation. The restoration of the damaged portion did not attract the prior sanction of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. The sole intention of defendants No.4 to 6 was to dispossess the plaintiff and other tenants without adopting due process of law.

3. The plaintiff had contested the above mentioned civil suit by filing a detailed reply. However, the said suit was dismissed in default for non-appearance of defendants No.4 to 6. Defendants No.4 to 6 in order to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property i.e. from building No.114/2 Lower Bazaar, Shimla, in collusion with defendant No.1 got issued a notice dated 26.03.2018 under the provisions of Section 258(2) of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”). The said notice was duly replied by the plaintiff as the said notice was apparently wrong, false and illegal. It was sated that the notice under Sections 258(2) of the Act issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff and other tenants is wrong and illegal and the same has been issued in collusion with defendants No.4 and 6. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the notices dated 26.03.2018 and 03.08.2019 issued by defendant No.1 under Sections 258(2) and 258(5) of the Act, are wrong, illegal, malafide and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Further it was prayed that the defendants be restrained, by way of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, from implementing/executing notices dated 26.03.2018 and 03.08.2019 issued by defendant No.1 without adoption of due process of law. Further, it was prayed that the decree for mandatory injunc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2047

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARomesh Verma, JKahan Chand And Sons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusRavi Chand Sood – RespondentCMPMO No.418 of 2025

A civil suit against a Municipal Corporation for acts done in pursuance of the Act is not maintainable without serving a mandatory two-month notice as per Section 392, and courts should not restrain statutory authorities from performing public safety duties regarding dilapidated buildings.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Romesh Verma, J
Kahan Chand And Sons Agencies Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Chand Sood – Respondent
CMPMO No.418 of 2025