IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO 269 of 2009. Date of decision May 25, 2009. Satish Kumar and others …Petitioners. Versus Satish Kumar and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). This petition has been preferred by defendants 1 to 3 against the order of the learned Courts below granting injunction to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs-respondents preferred an application in the pending suit that the respondents – defendants be restrained from blocking the passage as depicted by letters ABCD in the site plan, in land measuring 0 07 79 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - hectares, comprised in Khewat No. 305, Khatauni No. 547, Khasra No. 1985 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 2001-2002, situate in village Lower Kotla, Tehsil and District, Una, H.P., till the disposal of the main suit. The learned trial Court directed status quo qua the user of this passage. A further direction was issued that both the plaintiffs and the defendants will not raise any construction on this land. Being aggrieved from this order, petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge who held that passage as claimed was being used by the plaintiffs and affirmed the order of the learned appellate Court. The parties to the suit are co sharers to the suit land. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that both the Courts below have erred in granting the order as prayed for as status quo should be clearly defined. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it would not be open for me to re- appreciate questions of fact. (See Shamshad Ahmad - 3 - and others v. Tilak Raj Bajaj (deceased) through LRs and others, (2008) 9 SCC 1, B.K.Muniraju v. State of Karnataka and others, (2008) 4 SCC 451, Puran Ram v. Bhaguram and another, (2008) 4 SCC 102, Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another v. Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312 and Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani, (2005) 7 SCC 211). True, in case of perversity, this Court can always interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution, but it cannot act as a Court of Appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below were wrong in passing an order of status quo as it is no order in the eyes of law and status quo should be clearly defined. He placed reliance on the decisions of the High Court of Calcutta in Exhibitors Syndicate Private Ltd. v. Repose Properties Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 2006 Calcutta 323 and the Supreme Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr. V. Praveen Kumar Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1474. This proposition of law needs no reiteration. However, the order of both the Courts is clear when it says that there should be no hindrance in the use of the passage as denoted by letters ABCD in the site plan filed on record. Both the Courts - 4 - below have also placed an equitable restriction on the parties to the suit not to raise any construction on the suit land. The order is eminently just. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. This petition is accordingly rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. CMP 178 of 2009 Dismissed, in view of the judgment passed above. May 25, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.