Romesh Verma, Judge

h The present petition arises out of the judgment as gpassed by learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, dated 01.01.2026, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff under Order 43 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed and the order as passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. dated 30.06.2025 was affirmed, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was ordered to be dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the present respondent Virender Kumar. It was stated in the plaint that the suit property is comprised of Khewat/Khatauni No.85 min/305, bearing Khasra Nos.1211, 1254, 1255 & 1256, Kita 4, land measuring 00-02-73, 00-00-24 & 00-01-49 hectares, total land measuring 00-05-30 hectares,f situated at Mohal Sarkaghat/230, Illqua Suranga, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. The plaintiff has been allotted one shop which has been divided into two portions on the ground floor, and the plaintiff is running an established business of hardware and paints in the same. In the upper storey, although the shops are vacant, the same are in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff as per family arrang ement. The plaintiff has installed two signboards of Ultratech Building Solutions on the top of ground floor and first floor. The defendant, without the consent of the plaintiff, forcibly started the work of staircase after forcibly demolishing some portion of the upper storey of the possession of the plaintiff. The defendant is threatening and bent upon to damage the signboards of Ultratech Building Solutions, which are installed on the front of the shops. The defendant, along with his son, has started threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, to the detrimental interest of the plaintiff. Therefore, it was prayed that decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from causing any interference whatsoever qua the nature and possession over the suit land/property, changing the nature and possession of the suit land/property, damaging the signboards of Ultratech Building Solutions be passed in favour of the plafintiff with further prayer that decree for mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to dismantle the structure thereby restoring the suit land to its original position as it existed at the time of filing of the suit.

3. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial C ourt. The applicant/plaintiff prayed for passing of an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant, through himself or through his servants, agents and representatives from causing any interference whatsoever qua the nature and possession over the suit property, changing the nature, raising any construction and dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land during the pendency of suit.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant by raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action, non-joinder, valuation etc. On merits, it was averred that earlier the shops, where the plaintiff is running business in ground floor, were actually in the possession of the predecessor-in- interest of the defendant under the name of Hira Lal Paras Ram Gupta. The said firm had been running the premises since 1955 and the father of defendant was its proprietor until1980. After the death of father of defendant on 08.01.f1980 through a mutual understanding within the joint family, the plaintiff became the sole proprietor of firm. Both the parties, as well as the family members, carried on the business of the said firm jointly till 2012. Thereafter, the family members amicably decided to separate the business and the shops of ground floor where th