IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 241 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.3.2011 Ashwani Kumar and another …Petitioners. Versus Smt. Bhagwanti and other ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents No.1(a) to 1(d).: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent No.2.: Mr. P.S.Chandel, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 20th May, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.2 and setting-aside the order of the learned trial Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present petitioners filed a suit against Baldev Singh and Ranjeet Singh claiming that partition had wrongly been affected by the revenue authorities and further claiming that the partition proceedings should not continue and they should not be dispossessed of their land. Alongwith the suit an application for stay was filed and the learned trial Court vide its order directed 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 the parties to maintain status quo. An appeal against the said order was filed and the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the order of the Collector had become final since instrument of partition which was prepared on 7.3.2006 had not been challenged, the warrant of possession had to be issued in accordance with the instrument of partition. He, therefore, set-aside the order of interim injunction passed by the learned trial Court. 3. I have heard Shri Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Vivek Thakur and Shri P.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. At this stage, I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case itself. However, I find that the learned Appellate Court has passed an order in exercise of its jurisdiction and it cannot be said that the order is perverse or is such an order calling for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petition is rejected. No order as to costs. 16th March, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge