IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 423 of 2004. Date of decision: 06.12.2010. Basia Ram @ Basi Ram …Petitioner. Versus Devi Ram …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated 22.9.2004 delivered by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 55-S/14 of 2002 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and upheld the order of the learned Trial Court dated 9th August, 2002 dismissing the application under Order 39 Rule 2A filed by the plaintiff. 2. Undisputed facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. against defendant Devi Ram on 1st May, 1997. It is not disputed that the learned Trial Court on 3.5.1997 passed an order to the effect that both parties shall maintain status quo over the disputed land. The plaintiff filed an application on 12th August, 1998, i.e. about 15 months after the order had been passed to the effect that despite issuance of the order directing the parties to maintain status quo, the defendant in the month of May, 1997 itself had continued and completed the construction. The case of the defendant is that he had completed the construction by 13th April, 1997 prior to the issuance of the stay order . Both the courts below have come to the finding of fact that the defendant had not disobeyed the stay order and that he had completed the construction prior to filing of the suit. No interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge December, 6, 2010 (guleria)