2026:HHC:17412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.367 of 2023

Decided on: 13.05.2026

Kamli H….Petitioner Versus Amar Singh & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Ve rma, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, vice Mr.Mohan Sharma, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral)

The present petition has been filed by the

gdefendant/petitioner against the judgment as passed by Additional iDistrict Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., Camp at Karsog, dated 09.06.2023, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC was allowed and the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property during the pendency of the suit and the order as passed by learned Civil Judge, Karsog,

District Mandi, was set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:33:40 :::CIS

2 2026:HHC:17412

mandatory injunction against the present petitioner/defendant on the ground that land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.66 min/119 min Khasra No.1028, measuring 00-00-09 bighas, situated in Mohal Balindi/144, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. is described as Gair Mumkin Gawain. The same is recorded in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and other co- sharers as per jamabandi for the year 2018-2019. The father of the plaintiffs had constructed cowshed over the suit land, which was in absolute possession of the plaintiffs and the same got burnt in the month of December 2021. The Halqua Patwari inspected the spot for providing claim and, in this regard, took the signat ures of plaintiff No.1. Now, the defendant is going to cover

the land in the suit land by covering it through a tarpaulin.

3. As per plaintiff, it was the defendant has given her whole share to Puran Chand and, in that regard, Rapat No.323 dated 15.12.2021 was entered. Now, the defendant wants to grab the land of the plaintiffs for construction of a house. The plaintiffs are senior citizens and the defendant is trying to cover the suit land forcibly through a tarpaulin. Though, requests were made to the defendant, but she did not pay any heed to the same. The suit land is adjoining the road side, which is a valuable portion of the

suit land and of prime importance.

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:33:40 :::CIS

3 2026:HHC:17412

4. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an

application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

5. The suit was contested by the defendant by refuting

all the allegations as levelled in the plaint.

6. The defendant filed reply tfo the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and prayed for dismissal of the same.

7. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 07.12.2022

dismissed the application as filed by the plaintiffs/respondents.

8. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi on 08.12.2022. Learned first appellate Court vide its impugned judgment dated 09.06.2023 accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and directed both the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property during the

pendency of the suit. .

9. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

10. It is contended by Mr.Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned judgment as passed by learned first appellate Court is erroneous and liable to be

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 00:33:40 :::CIS

4 2026:HHC:17412

quashed and set aside. He submits that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the point in controversy. Therefore, after accepting the present petition, the impugned judgment passed by learned first appellate Court des