IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.670 of 2008. Date of decision : 01.12.2008. Cantonment Board Kasauli …Petitioner Versus M/s.K.K. Ropeways Ltd. …Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Dev Darshan Sud, J. This is defendant’s petition against the order of the learned District Judge, Solan, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the order passed against the Cantonment Board on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil procedure filed by the plaintiff- respondent. The respondent-plaintiff preferred a suit against the petitioner herein praying for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent for the use of the road known as “Kasauli Road” which passes through Lower Mall, Kasauli coming from Garkhal side leading to the ropeway landing station being constructed on behalf of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The ropeway is practically complete. Some machinery, equipment and construction material 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? was required to be transported on this road. This claim is contested by the respondent who had raised the objection that permission for use of the road is required from the Army Authorities/Air Force Authorities. The learned trial Court granted the application but in appeal, the learned District Judge has modified the order holding that the respondent-plaintiff can use the road but cannot take the building material from the gate of the Air Force Station as the security of the Station is of paramount consideration. The order passed by the learned appellate Court is in the following terms:- “8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is that carrying of material up to the Air Force Gate would create security problems as the area is High Security Zone, therefore, the permission to use the road by the respondent/plaintiff cannot be granted except by the Ministry of defence. The perusal of the record reveals that the respondent/plaintiff had approached the Ministry of Defence but had not received any favourable response. The learned trial Court after appreciation of the facts allowed the use of road by the respondent/plaintiff for constructing landing site. The fact cannot be lost sight of that the proposed construction by the respondent/plaintiff had only been carried after the Board had approved the construction of ropeway and Landing site at Kasauli through a resolution. But now they have taken a somersault and have revoked the said resolution. Since the Lower Mall Kasauli road is a Public Road, therefore, the Board cannot obstruct the respondent/plaintiff from using it for carrying the building material. However, the respondent/plaintiff cannot take this building material beyond the gate of Air Force Station as the security of the Station is of paramount consideration and all of us should be aware of it, but at the same time it has to be borne in mind that the respondent/plaintiff has invested a huge amount in constructing the Air Ropeway and this project is now half way. The restraint from constructing the landing station now would certainly cause irreparable loss to it. The security aspect can be taken care of by proper checking the vehicles, men and material and also by not permitting it to be carried beyond the gate of the Air Force Station as up to that place the tourists and their vehicles and public at large is also allowed. Therefore, it would be unjust if the respondent/plaintiff is denied the same facility and right. However, order granting unrestricted permission to the respondent/plaintiff to carry the building material through the road need to be regulated. The respondent/plaintiff would take his vehicles, men and material to the landing site at such time of the day or night as may be fixed by the appellant/defendant and the vehicles, men and material shall also be subject to such checking as may be provided. In view of this the order of learned trial court is sustainable in law and on facts to this extent. The point is answered accordingly”. It is obvious that the learned District Judge, in appeal, having thoroughly appreciated the facts of the case and concerns of the parties, has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on a number of grounds and submits that interim order passed finally decides the rights of the parties. This is not so. The learned District Judge, on a consideration of the entire material, has come to the conclusion that the interest of both the parties would be protected if the order of the trial Court is modified to the extent as held by it. I do not find any justification to interfere in the order passed by the learned District Judge. This petition is accordingly rejected. However, a direction is issued to the learned trial Court that the suit shall be proceeded with and decided expeditiously. No unnecessary adjournments shall be granted. December 1, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.