IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.76 of 2010 Date of decision : May 28, 2010 Ram Parkash and others …Petitioners. Versus Narender Singh Chauhan …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Harish Dod, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Dispute is with regard to the estate of one Dev Kali. Respondents filed a suit, alleging that they had succeeded to the estate of Dev Kali, on the basis of Will executed in their favour and that in accordance with that Will, mutation has also been attested in their favour. They alleged that the present petitioner, who is impleaded as defendant in the suit, had threatened to oust them from the suit land. So, they have filed a suit for temporary, perpetual and mandatory injunction. Alongwith the suit they also filed an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been allowed by the trial Court. Appeal filed by the petitioner- defendant in the Court of District Judge against the order on application, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands dismissed. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court (District Judge) as also by the order of the trial Court. His case is that Dev Kali had executed a Will in his favour and that was executed subsequent to the Will set up by the plaintiffs. Petitioner did not seek mutation of the estate of Dev Kali in his favour, on the strength of the Will, which he claims to have been executed in his favour. He came up with the plea of there being a Will in his favour, for the first time in the suit instituted against him by the respondents. The fact that mutation has been attested in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs, on the basis of the Will as also the fact that the petitioner did not approach the revenue authorities for mutating the estate of Dev Kali in his favour, on the basis of the Will, allegedly executed in his favour, I do not think the orders of the District Judge and the trial Court call for any interference, in exercise of the power, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, in view of the dismissal of the main petition. May 28, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J