IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 305 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.12.2010. Harsharan Sharma …Petitioner. Versus Naresh Kumar and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the petitioner: Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. K.S.Kanwar, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan dated 9.7.2010 whereby he modified the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Paonta Sahib dated 30.11.2009. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit against the respondent claiming that Shri Ram Nath, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent had agreed to sell land comprised in Khasra Nos. 752/181 (old) new Khasra Nos. 494 and 495 to him for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. It was further alleged that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid in terms of the agreement and the plaintiff was put in possession of the land. In the suit it was also claimed that in addition to the aforesaid land 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 the petitioner had also raised construction of a toilet on Khasra No. 179 and the respondents be restrained from interfering in the said land. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was filed and the learned trial Court allowed the application and granted stay order in favour of the plaintiff restraining the respondents from interfering in Khasra No. 752/181. No stay order was granted by the learned trial Court in respect of Khasra No. 179. However, the learned District Judge clarified this fact and made it even clearer that the plaintiff is not entitled to temporary injunction over Khasra No. 179. Even as per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff has not set out any case as to how he is in possession of Khasra No. 179. In fact, prima facie, there is no material on record to show that he is actually in possession of the said Khasra number. Therefore, he is not entitled to temporary injunction qua this khasra number. As such, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. 15th December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge