1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR No.: 47 of 2011 Date of decision: 02.11.2017 ______________________________________________________________________ Shri Mast Ram and others …..Petitioners. Vs. Shri Ram Saran and another …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge(Oral) : By way of this revision petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief: “It is therefore prayed that after calling for the record of Court below and examining the legality and propriety of the same, quash the order dated 22.2.2011 passed by the District Judge in CMA No. 55 of 2008 and restoring the order of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 2, Hamirpur in CMA No. 178 of 2001, in the interest of justice.” Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that petitioner before this Court filed a Civil Suit against the present respondents in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, District Hamirpur alongwith an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the application so filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned trial Court passed an order to maintain status quo qua the suit land on 14.08.2001. As per the plaintiff, despite passing of the said status quo order by the learned trial Court and despite service of the said order upon the defendants therein, they breached the said order by flouting the same. In these circumstances, an application was filed under Order 39 Rule 2A before the learned trial Court praying for appropriate action against the defendants for willfully disobeying the Court order. Learned trial Court vide order, dated 11.06.2008, allowed the petition so filed under Order 39 Rule 2A by passing the following order: “24. In view of the discussions made above since the point No. 1 has been answered in affirmative the petition is allowed with cost and it has been established that the respondents have flouted the order of the Court intentionally, the property of the J.Ds. is required to be attached for violation of the injunction order and accordingly I hereby order that the property 3 of the J.Ds. be attached. Memo of cost be prepared accordingly. This case file after its due completion be consigned to the record room.” 3. Feeling aggrieved, respondents before this Court preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, which was registered as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 55 of 2008. Learned appellate Court vide judgment, dated 22.02.2011, allowed the same and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court on the application so filed before it by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A. The order of the learned appellate authority stands assailed by the petitioner/plaintiff by way of this revision petition. 4. When this case was taken up for arguments, this Court has been apprised of the fact that the Civil Suit so filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 09.01.2007 and the same has attained finality. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment under challenge. 6. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court demonstrates that while allowing the appeal so filed before it by the present respondents, it was held by the learned appellate Court that in order to ascertain as to whether interim order passed by the learned trial Court was flouted or not, a Local Commissioner was appointed and 4 perusal of his report demonstrated that he was not in a position to fix the boundaries of the suit land and to opine that the construction after passing of the status quo order has been carried on the suit land. Learned appellate Court also held that the statement of PW-6 Santosh Kumar, who had taken the photographs Ex. PW6/B to PW6/E, also did not conclusively prove that the construction which was shown in the said photographs pertained to the suit land, which was the subject matter of the suit land. In addition, learned appellate Court also held that ocular statement of the applicant and his witnesses demonstrated that construction in fact had been raised on the suit land after the status quo order was passed by the learned trial Court, stood controverted by the other party. 7. In my considered view, there is no infirmity with the judgment so passed by the learned appellate Court. I have gone through the record of the case and a perusal of the same demonstrates that the report of the Local Commissioner in fact was not conclusive as to whether after passing of the status quo order, defendants/respondents had actually carried out any construction over the suit land. Findings returned by the learned appellate Court qua the statement of PW-6 Santosh Kumar are also duly borne out from the records of the case. Not only this, it is evident from the record that after status quo order was 5 passed by the learned trial Court on an application so filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and notices which were issued by the learned Court on said application were not actually served upon the defendants, but the same were received by one Shri Ashwani Kumar, who was not a party defendant in the Civil Suit, as on the date when alleged breach was committed. 8. Be that as it may, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction otherwise also, all that this Court has to look into is as to whether the learned Court below, whose order or decision is under challenge, was having the jurisdiction to decide the issue or not or whether that jurisdiction has been exercised prudently and in accordance with law or not. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned appellate Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law and the findings returned by the learned appellate Court are also not perverse as the same are duly borne out from the records of the case. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity with the judgment, dated 22.02.2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 55 of 2008 and accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 02, 2017 (bhupender)