Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral).

The present petition arises out of order as passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 22-CMA/14 of 2024 on 08.10.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner has been dismissed and the order as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan dated 30.09.2024 has been affirmed.

Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for grant of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the present respondents/defendants. As per the claim as put forward by the plaintiff, he is owner in possession of Plot No. 14, situated in Housing Board Colony, Nahan District Sirmur H.P. It has been averred that the plaintiff has purchased the said plot along with house from its earlier owner Shri Ashwani Goel and Shri Vijay Kumar and that defendant No.1 is the oHwner of House No. LIG-15 contiguous to the plaintiff’s house on its western side. That the plaintiff while raising construction has raised his retaining wall 10 feet in height x2.5 feet in breadth in and over his own plot towards the house of defendants and in Maty-June 2020 had raised a brick wall over his retaining wall by the side of house of defendants within their knowledge who had not raised any objection to such construction. The brick wall so raised by the plaintiff towards the plot/house of the defendants is below from the house of defendants and the defendants are causing continuous interference and trespass besides throwing debris in the house of plaintiff and to protect his property from unwanted intruders and their acts, have started raising the height of existing brick wall from 11.05.2024 by engaging masons and labourers, which did not find favour to defendants and the defendants illegally and unauthorizedly interfered in the construction work of the plaintiff and did not allow the plaintiff to complete his construction work. Such act on the part of the defendants is illegal and unauthorized and against the principle of law. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit land and are completely strangers to it. Therefore, the suit has been filed for grant of decree of injunction against the defendants.

The suit as filed by the plaintiff/petitioner was contested by the defendants/respondents by filing a written statemHent by raising various preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, estoppel and limitation etc. On merits, all the averments as made in the plaint were refuted and denied. It was stated that after constructing the boundary wall in his own land by tthe defendants, they had left 2 feet land area as Gali behind his house towards the plot No.14 so that the sewerage pipe of his plot along with plot No. 6 & 7 could be laid or passed through the said left out land area, so as to avoid future complication in this behalf. It is further stated that in the month of June, 2023, the plaintiff started construction on the retaining wall of the defendants and tried to cover the 2 feet gali, which was used for sewerage pipe and trying to close the said gali by putting lintel on it.

Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was also filed by the plaintiff/petitioner seeking injunction against the defendants/respondents by restraining them from causing any kind of interference either themselves or through their servants agents etc,, in the construction work of brick wall by the plaintiff over his plot No.14 and house towards the side of the defendants, in any manner whatsoever, during the pendency of the suit.

The application was duly contested by the defendants/respondent by filing reply.

Learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirmaur District Nahan vide its order dated 30.09.2024 directed both the parties toH maintain status quo qua the brick