IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No 74 of 2010 Date of Decision: 9.8.2010. Ram Krishan …Petitioner Versus. Deep Ram …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. . Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner Mr. R.S Chandel,Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate Per Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in CMA No. 62-S- 14 of 2009 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and confirmed the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Theog passed in CMA No. 94/6 of 2008 in Civil Suit No.107 of 2008 on 29.8.2009 restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from interfering in the suit land. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming to be mortgagee in possession of the suit land and a prayer was made that the defendant who was threatening to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff be restrained from doing so. In the written statement filed by the defendant he did not dispute the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The defendant averred that he is entitled to redeem his share in the suit land and to get back the possession as per law 3. In view of the above, both Courts held that since the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and this fact has not been disputed by the defendant, the plaintiff was held entitled to the interim order directing that he will not be dispossessed during the pendency of the case. There is nothing wrong with the aforesaid order. However, it is clarified that the defendant is entitled to initiate proceedings for redemption of the suit property in accordance with law. 4. Therefore, it is ordered that if so advised, the defendant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings for redemption of the mortgaged land and the same proceedings shall be decided strictly in accordance with law and the plaintiff shall have a right to raise all objections therein including the objection that the said proceedings are not maintainable in view of some earlier decision. Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Deepak Gupta, Judge 9th August, 2010 (Veena)