IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 225 of 2010. Decided on : July 28, 2010. Dinu …Petitioner. Versus Ram Krishan & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Vashista, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Heard. Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that he is joint owner in possession with the respondents, who are his brothers/ successors in interest of his brothers and successors in interest of Salig Ram (deceased). His plea is that suit property was mortgaged with the petitioner and his two brothers, Udho and Bansi, by said Salig Ram (deceased), in the year 1952, but when mutation was attested, petitioner’s name could not be recorded and, therefore, his name does not figure in the revenue papers. 2. Respondents-defendants denied that mortgage was in favour of three brothers. Their plea is that it was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2 - only in favour of two brothers, that is, Udho and Bansi, respondents-defendants, and not in favour of petitioner- plaintiff. Petitioner also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking issuance of temporary injunction, restraining the respondents-defendants from creating charge, alienating the suit land or changing its nature, during the pendency of the suit. Trial Court dismissed the application. Appeal filed against the said order has also been dismissed by the learned District Judge, vide order, dated 22.4.2010, Annexure P-9. 3. The only submission that has been made on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff is that in the suit for redemption, filed by the mortgager sometimes in the year 1992, respondents-defendants took the plea that said suit was bad for non joinder of the present petitioner, who was stated to be a co-mortgagee with respondents –defendants and that said averment in the written statement, amounts to an admission. That suit was decreed with the finding that present petitioner was not a co mortgagee. 4. Now, when the Court gave finding that petitioner-plaintiff was not co-mortgagee and the suit was decreed and redemption has taken place, petitioner cannot be said to have a prima facie case. Hence, present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed. However, trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the main suit. - 3 - 5. Observations made herein or in the orders of the two Courts below, shall be completely ignored, while deciding the main suit. July 28, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.