IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 297 of 2010 Date of decision: 15th November, 2010 Smt. Kanta Devi Petitioner. Versus Sh. Kirpa Singh Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For respondent: Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition is directed against the order of learned District Judge, Una dated 1st May, 2010 passed in CMA No. 9 of 2010, whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to defendant), upholding the order of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Una dated 30th January, 2010, whereby she has directed the parties to maintain status quo as on date. 2. The undisputed facts are that the parties are co- sharers having shares in joint land. The defendant inherited some land from her paternal aunt by way of will and she also 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 purchased some share in the land from Sarv Shri Hans Raj, Bhag Singh and Prem Singh, sons of Udho. The plaintiff filed the present suit alleging that though the land measuring 1 Kanal 3 Marlas was depicted as Abadi, but in fact on the spot, it was lying vacant and the defendant was trying to raise certain construction on the land. The case of the defendant is that a cow shed which had been constructed by Sh. Hans Raj etc. existed earlier which came into her possession and that this cow shed had fallen in the rainy season and she only wanted to reerect the same on old lines. The learned Courts below held that at the present moment, there is no construction on the suit land and till partition is conducted, no party can raise any construction on a particular portion of the suit land. 2. I have gone through the records of both the courts below and find that they have exercised jurisdiction vested in them by law. The findings given by the learned courts below are neither perverse nor they have illegally exercised jurisdiction vested on them. The findings given by learned courts below cannot be interfered in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Construction of India. Therefore, the petition is rejected. It is however made clear that any observation made while disposing of this petition shall have no effect on the merits of the main case. (Deepak Gupta) Judge 3 November, 15, 2010 (KRS)