Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Romesh Verma, J
Chuhar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Milkha Singh – Respondent
CMPMO No. 33 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.S. Goverdhan, Rakesh Thakur
For the Respondents: Pranjal Munjal
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is restricted to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority; it cannot be invoked as an appellate remedy to reweigh evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact during the denial of a temporary injunction.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Temporary Injunction - Discretionary relief - Triple test for injunction (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss) - When partition proceedings have attained finality and been affirmed by revenue authorities, the party seeking to challenge such final partition in a civil suit, without establishing a strong prima facie case to stay the consequences of the finalized partition, is not entitled to ad interim injunction.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging partition proceedings finalized by revenue authorities, asserting that mandatory provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act were ignored. They sought an interim stay on defendants interfering with their possession. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the application for temporary injunction, noting the long-standing finality of the revenue partition. The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 227.
Findings of Court:
The High Court observed that partition proceedings had been pending since 1994 and were finalized in 2003, with subsequent affirmations through multiple appellate and review stages. The court held that the petitioners failed to cross the threshold for interim relief. The court reiterated that Article 227 jurisdiction is not appellate in nature and cannot be used to correct mere findings of fact or reweigh evidence where the lower authorities acted within their jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the court below erred in refusing the grant of temporary injunction pending a civil suit challenging finalized revenue partition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: An interim injunction cannot be granted to stall the fruits of a finalized partition proceeding when the party seeking relief fails to establish a prima facie case. Further, the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their bounds and is not meant to correct perceived errors in facts or law in non-appellate proceedings.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Whether approved for reporting?
Romesh Verma, Judge:
1. The instant petition arises out of the impugned judgment as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. dated 23.12.2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioners was dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra dated 26.10.2024 was affirmed, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was ordered to be dismissed.
2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the present petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration against the present respondents in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. It was averred in the plaint that in the litigation which was instituted by the defendants with respect to the partition of the suit land, the revenue officers ignored the request of the plaintiffs and did not follow the mandatory provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act (for short the ‘Act’). The partition proceedings which took place inter-se the parties was carried out without following the provisions of the law and the mode and manner as envisaged under the Act was completely bye-passed. It was stated in the plaint that the defendants in connivance with revenue officials got front portion of the road to the extent of more than 28 meters in excess of their entitled share contrary to alleged mode of partition and even reduced the width of existing path from 5 meters to 3 meters in revenue records.
3. As per the plaintiffs, the defendants are headstrong persons and have no regard for the law and taking advantage of the partition proceedings, the defendants are trying to disturb the settled possession of the plaintiffs. Therefore, decree for declaration and consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction was sought against the defendants before the learned trial Court.
4. It was prayed in the plaint that the partition order as passed by the learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nurpur dated 07.06.2003 and subsequent orders passed in Case No 94 of 2003 by the Sub Divisional Collector, Nurpur, dated 30.07.2005 and thereafter in Appeal No. 203 of 2006 dated 27.11.2010 and thereafter, by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Revenue Appeal No. 09 of 2011 dated 19.12.2024 and further order in Review Petition No. 05 of 2015 dated 04.12.2015 and instrument of partition drawn on the basis of order dated 07.06.2003 affirmed by the learned Collector, Fatehpur vide its order dated 25.08.2017 are null and void, illegal and wrong and the same may be declared as null and void.
5. The suit as preferred by the plaintiffs/petitioners was contested by the present respondents/defendants by raising preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action, jurisdiction and estoppel etc. In the written statement, it was averred by the defendants that the suit land has been finally partitioned by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Nurpur vide order dated 07.06.2003 after having visited the spot on two occasions and the same was upheld by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Revenue Appeal No. 09 of 2011 vide its order dated 19.12.2014. The Review Petition No. 05 of 2015 was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 04.12.2015.
6. It is the case of the defendants that the suit land has been partitioned by the revenue Court vide its order dated 07.06.2003 by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nurpur. The said order was affirmed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Government of Himachal Pradesh. The instrument of partition was prepared by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Nurpur and the stamp papers on which the instrument of partition was written were filed by Sh. Harminder Singh proforma defendant No.3 during the pendency of the appeal before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals).
7. As per defendants, after effecting of the partition, the status of the suit land has changed
