IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.280 of 2010 Date of decision : August 11, 2010 Ved Parkash …Petitioner. Versus Gram Panchayat Trilokpur …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) This petition is totally misconceived. The plaintiff has filed a suit for grant of a decree of permanent injunction in respect of property bearing Khata Khatauni No.163/342, Khasra No.667/375 min, situated in Mauza Trilokpur, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour. It was prayed that the defendant be injuncted from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. An application for stay was also filed. Stay order was not granted by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the learned District Judge was also dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached this court by filing CMPMO No.16 of 2010. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that the learned lower Appellate Court had not discussed the merits of the case and, therefore, directed the learned Court to decide the matter afresh. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. …2… 2. When the matter was remanded to the lower Appellate Court, a joint statement was made by plaintiff Ved Parkash and his counsel Shri V.C. Jain, Advocate, to the effect that in case the Tehsildar, Nahan is ordered to demarcate the land and he reports that the construction being carried by the defendant is on Khasra No.667/375, which is abadi deh, then he (plaintiff Ved Parkash) would withdraw his suit and the same may be deemed to have been dismissed. It was clearly mentioned in the statement that the plaintiff would not file any objections to the report of the Local Commissioner. In view of this statement of the plaintiff and his counsel, which was recorded in writing, the learned District Judge, Nahan, appointed the Tehsildar as Commissioner to give a report in terms of the statement. The Tehsildar gave a report, wherein it was reported that the construction was being carried out on Khasra No.667/375/1, which was a part of abadi deh. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in terms of the statement by him. 3. Despite having made the statement, the plaintiff filed a Review Petition in which the main allegation is that the order be reviewed on the ground that the plaintiff wants to file objections to the report of the Local commissioner. Alongwith this application, another application for restraining the defendant from raising construction was also moved. No order was passed on this application and, hence, the plaintiff has approached this Court. …3… 4. The plaintiff claims that the defendant be restrained from raising any construction. The conduct of the plaintiff disentitles him to any relief. He made a statement in the learned trial Court clearly stating that in case the Tehsildar is appointed as Commissioner and it is found that the construction is being raised on Khasra No.667/375, his suit may be dismissed as withdrawn and he also stated on oath that he would not file objections to the report of the Local Commissioner. In such circumstances, he cannot claim any relief of injunction after such report has been filed by the Tehsildar. Petition is accordingly dismissed. August 11, 2010(sd) ( Deepak Gupta ), J