IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 55 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.10.2011 Kangru Ram ….Petitioner. Versus Jagdish Chand ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 NO. For the petitioner: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13th December, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected and order of the learned trial Court dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A was upheld. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that in a suit filed by the petitioner respondent-Jagdish Chand was only permitted to reconstruct and rebuild the demised premises on the old lines but was not allowed to make any additions or alterations in the demised premises under the garb of the said order. The allegation is that in fact the respondent not only repaired the 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 building but made material additions and alterations in the building and hence has violated the order. 3. Both the Courts below have held that the respondent was permitted to repair the demised premises and has in fact repaired the same and has not violated the order, which is a pure finding of fact which cannot be interfered in the proceeding under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, I have been informed at the Bar that the main suit itself now stands disposed of having been withdrawn. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No costs. 11th October, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.