IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 191 of 2011 Date of decision: 13.6.2011 Jag Pal ….Petitioner. Versus Chetan Upadhayay and another ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: None. _________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 26.4.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and upheld the order dated 18.02.2009 granted by the learned trial Court whereby he restrained the defendant from taking his vehicles or causing any interference in the suit land owned by the plaintiff. 2. The undisputed facts are that the suit land is owned by the plaintiff. The defendant had 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 purchased the joint piece of land and to raise construction he took a J.C.B. machine through the land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff objected and filed the suit. The stand of the defendant is that the suit land and other adjoining land were owned by one person, who had sold plots to various persons and all the plot holders had agreed that there would be a common path and that the defendant had only taken JCB machine through the common path. Other than the Tatima, no material has been placed on record to show that any statement was made by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff giving up any portion of the suit land for the purpose of path. Merely, because all the other co-owners give up their rights does not mean that plaintiff is bound by such a statement. 3. Be that as it may, in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not to reassess the evidence and only jurisdictional errors can be corrected. There is no jurisdictional error in the orders of the Courts below. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. The suit was filed in the year 2008. The learned trial 3 Court is directed to dispose of the same at the earliest and in any event not later than 31st October, 2012. No costs. 13th June, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge