SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
Kamli – Appellant
Versus
Amar Singh – Respondent
CMPMO/367/2023



Petitioner Advocates:Raj Kumar Kalsi Bhim Raj Sharma ,Respondent Advocate: NEMO Hari Shyam Upadhayay Naresh Kumar Sharma Mohan Sharma Hari Shyam Upadhayay

##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:17412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.367 of 2023

Decided on: 13.05.2026

Kamli ….PHetitioner

Versus

Amar Singh & another ...Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verm a, Judge

Whether approved for reportingt?

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

dgefendant/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

##PAGE2##

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. Thef 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

signature s 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

##PAGE3##

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 to tfhe 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 o n 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

##PAGE4##

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 deserves to be quashed and set aside and

the o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top