IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.337 of 2011. Decided on: October 17,2011. Maya Devi …….Petitioner/plaintiff. Versus Deputy Commissioner, Kangra and others …….Respondent/defendants. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Pawan Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Asstt.A.G., for respondents No.1 & 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.(oral): Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order, dated 22.6.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra, vide which the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for grant of interim relief was dismissed. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the certified copies of the documents placed on record. 4. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction claiming that the names of the plaintiff and her family members were removed from the Panchayat Register and she was 2 entitled to have the ration card in her favour by restoring the name of her family members in the Pariwar register including the ration card. The Present application was filed before the learned trial Court under Section 151 CPC claiming the interim relief that direction should be issued to the defendants for restoration of the ration card in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court shows that the plaintiff had filed the application under Section 151 CPC claiming the interim relief to which she is entitled only after both the parties had led evidence and the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed in the main suit. The application was not maintainable under Section 151 CPC and rather the application should have been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. It was also rightly observed that in case the plaintiff is granted the relief, as prayed for, by way of this application, it will amount to giving the final relief itself without disposing of the case on merits. 5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality that it should be interfered with. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 21.11.2011. A copy of 3 this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court forthwith for information. 6. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. October 17, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.