DEVMANI vs KHEM RAJ AND ORS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3183

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 - Section 57 - Temporary injunction - Equitable and discretionary relief - Revenue records carry a presumption of truth which must be rebutted (Paras 16, 20, 21).

(B) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of supervisory jurisdiction - Court will not interfere with well-reasoned judgments of lower courts unless there is a jurisdictional error, perversity, or illegality (Paras 12, 24, 26).

(C) Conduct of party - A person seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands - Filing repetitive applications for injunction after previous dismissals and withdrawing previous challenges without seeking liberty constitutes an abuse of the process of law (Paras 20, 22, 23).

Facts of the case:
A suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction was filed challenging consolidation orders passed in 1992 and 1997, claiming they were null and void. The defendants raised preliminary objections regarding the bar of jurisdiction under the specific consolidation act and the fact that the suit was time-barred. The plaintiff had previously challenged the same consolidation proceedings through a writ petition but withdrew it unconditionally without seeking liberty. Revenue records indicated the defendants' exclusive ownership and possession. After the first injunction application was set aside and a subsequent challenge was dismissed by the High Court, the plaintiff filed repetitive applications for injunction on similar grounds.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the revenue records established the defendants' exclusive possession and ownership. The plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of truth attached to these records. The plaintiff's conduct, including the unconditional withdrawal of a previous writ petition, the act of selling land based on the consolidation proceedings, and the filing of successive injunction applications, demonstrated an abuse of the legal process to frustrate the rights of the defendants.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to justify a temporary injunction, and whether the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised to disturb the findings of the lower courts.

Ratio Decidendi: The grant of an injunction is subject to the triplicate test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. As the revenue records favored the defendants and the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of truth, no prima facie case was established. Furthermore, as injunction is an equitable relief, the applicant must approach the court with clean hands; repetitive litigation and failure to maintain consistency in legal challenges preclude the grant of such discretionary relief.

Result: Petition dismissed with costs.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Suit for declaration and injunction challenging consolidation orders — Application for temporary injunction dismissed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 14 )

2. Plaintiff sought injunction to maintain status quo; defendants opposed citing revenue records and prior litigation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 17 )

3. Petition dismissed with costs — temporary injunction refused. (Para 26 , 27 )

4. What are the essential requirements for grant of a temporary injunction?

A party must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favour, and irreparable loss if injunction is refused. (Para 21 )

5. What is the evidentiary value of revenue records in an injunction suit concerning land?

Revenue records carry a presumption of truth and can be relied upon to determine possession unless rebutted. (Para 16 , 18 , 23 )

6. Can a party who files multiple applications for the same relief and withdraws earlier proceedings without liberty be granted equitable injunction?

Such conduct amounts to abuse of process and disentitles the party to equitable relief, as the party does not approach with clean hands. (Para 19 , 20 , 22 )

7. What is the scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or perversity; it does not reappraise evidence or substitute findings. (Para 24 , 25 )

Whether approved for reporting?¹1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral).

1. The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, on 12.06.2025 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the present petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. dated 31.01.2025 was affirmed, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for grant of injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Chachiot at Gohar for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. It was averred in the plaint that the consolidation proceedings started in Muhal Chail/51, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. in the year 1989. Defendants No.1 to 3 in connivance with the consolidation authorities filed separate applications for partition of land on 06.03.1992. The Consolidation Officer in league with defendants No.1 to 3, without the consent and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 as also without taking into consideration the actual physical and joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 in equal shares, clubbed the suit land with other land from separate khewat for partition wrongly and illegally.

3. As per plaintiff, the Consolidation Officer vide orders dated 08.06.1992 passed in applications No. 57/92 and 56/92 filed by defendants No.1 to 3, clubbed the suit land for partition whereby they have been shown to be cosharers with defendants No.6 to 9 wrongly and illegally. As a matter of fact, defendants No.1 and 2 were neither co-owners in Khewat No.19/33 nor in total Khewat No.19 and were not even in possession of the suit land as mentioned in the plaint. The consolidation authorities, vide its order dated 8.6.1992 passed in application No.57/92, have allotted Khasra No. 209/2 measuring 0-2-18 bighas to defendant No.1 in one khata and allotted Khasra No. 209/1 measuring 0-1-14 bighas, Khasra No. 212 measuring 0-6-18 bighas and Khasra No.226, measuring 0-2-5 bighas in one khata jointly to defendants No.1 and 2 and the above said allotment was incorporated in Misal Hakiyat Consolidation Muhal Chail/51. As per the plaintiff/petitioner, the consolidation officer has wrongly and illegally allotted the suit land to defendants No.1 and 2 without summoning the plaintiff and defendants No.4 to 6 and without hearing them. The order dated 08.06.1992 is also not in conformity with the scheme framed as also the provisions of H.P. Consolidation Act and Rules, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Further, it has been averred that when the plaintiff came to know about the said order dated 08.06.1992, he filed revision petition under Section 54 of the Act before the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, H.P. However, the same came to be dismissed on 24.09.1997. Therefore, declaration was sought that the order dated 08.06.1992 passed in partition application No. 57/92 by the Consolidation Officer, Sundernagar is wrong, illegal, null and void and not in conformity with the provisions of H. P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. Further, it was prayed that the declaration be issued by declaring order dated 24.09.1997 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holding, H.P. in revision petition No. 17/94 to be wrong, illegal, null and void. It was prayed that the revenue entries showing defendants No.1 and 2 as owners in possession of suit land be declared as wrong, illegal, null and void and the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 are joint owners in possession of suit land to the extent of ¼ shares each. Further, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was sought.

5. The suit was conteste

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3183

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
DEVMANI – Appellant
Versus
KHEM RAJ AND ORS – Respondent
CMPMO/464/2025

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What are the essential requirements for grant of a temporary injunction?

5. What is the evidentiary value of revenue records in an injunction suit concerning land?

6. Can a party who files multiple applications for the same relief and withdraws earlier proceedings without liberty be granted equitable injunction?

7. What is the scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3183

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMADEVMANI – AppellantVersusKHEM RAJ AND ORS – RespondentCMPMO/464/2025

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What are the essential requirements for grant of a temporary injunction?

5. What is the evidentiary value of revenue records in an injunction suit concerning land?

6. Can a party who files multiple applications for the same relief and withdraws earlier proceedings without liberty be granted equitable injunction?

7. What is the scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution?

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
DEVMANI – Appellant
Versus
KHEM RAJ AND ORS – Respondent
CMPMO/464/2025