IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 112 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.9.2010 Om Parkash …. Petitioner Versus Shiv Kumar & others ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.P.Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.A.K.Vashista, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner who is not a party in the Civil Suit pending between the respondents herein has challenged the order dated 27.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una whereby he, on the basis of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, disposed of the appeal. 2 2. It is alleged that the property which is subject matter of the dispute in the suit out of which the present petition arises is also the subject matter of the Civil Suit No.67/08 pending in this Court which has been filed by the present petitioner against respondent No.3 Smt.Saroj Bala. It is averred that in that suit, there is an order directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit property. 3. It is argued by Sh.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact, the impugned order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner and he can challenge the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, Sh.R.P.Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 who was the plaintiff in the suit out of which these proceedings arise submits that his client is not a party in the suit pending in the Court and he is not aware of any such order. Since the order, in question, has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge on the basis of the statements of the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the proper course for the petitioner should be to apply to the said Court itself for modification/vacation of the stay order on the 3 grounds which are raised in this petition. This court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the order of a Court subordinate to it when it is alleged that the order was passed without the Court being made aware of certain facts. In such an eventuality, the litigant must approach the Court concerned and apprise it of the facts and pray that the order which has been passed without placing proper facts before it should be recalled or reviewed. Therefore, this petition is rejected and it is directed that the petitioner shall apply to the learned Additional District Judge, Una for review within 15 days from today. On his doing so, the learned Additional District Judge after hearing all the parties shall pass an appropriate order. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions made by the parties and the observations made hereinabove have been made only for the purpose of disposing of this petition. The interim order granted by this Court shall continue till 30th September, 2010. It is obvious that the petitioner shall be at liberty 4 to apply to the learned Additional District Judge, Una for grant of interim stay. 5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Dasti copy. September 6, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge