IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 13 of 2007 Date of decision: 06.12.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Shri Piare Lal son of shri Nenu Ram, resident of village Chhani Khode, Phati & Kothi, Chanog, Tehsil & District Kullu, H.P. .....Petitioner. Versus 1. Shri Durga Singh son of Shri Het Ram, resident of village Chhurla, Phati & Kothi Dughilag, Tehsil & District Kullu, H.P. 2. Shri RajinderSingh son of Shri Alam Chand, resident of village Jarad Bhutti, Phati Shamshi, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil & District Kullu, H.P. 3. Shri Dhan Dev son of Shri Dila Ram, resident of village Jarad Bhutti, Phati Shamshi, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil & District Kullu, H.P. .....Respondents. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction in the facts and circumstances enumerated here in below. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. None for respondents No. 2 & 3. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). On 22.08.2007, while admitting the present petition, the following order was passed by this Court in this matter: “Whether this petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure should have been invoked are such legal issues which shall be taken into consideration at the stage of the final hearing of this petition. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... Admitted. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Neeraj Gupta appears for respondent No.1. Mr. Deepak Kaushal appears vice Mr. Naginder Thakur for respondent No.3. Let notice be issued to respondent No.2 only. CMP No. 31 of 2007. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a careful perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, I feel that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there is no need to call for any reply to this application from the respondents. Even though I propose to reject this application, I do wish to observe and direct that whatever addition, construction or alteration respondent No.1 makes with respect to the property in question, the same shall abide by the result of the petition.” 2. Judgment and decree dated 17.11.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu (H.P.), in a suit for possession and declaration filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has also challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 17.11.2006 by filing Civil Revision No. 90 of 2011, which is also listed for today. 4. In view of the above, only one of the above proceedings can continue and the other is liable to be dismissed at this very stage. When faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted permission to withdraw the present petition, being CMPMO No. 13 of 2007, with liberty reserved to continue with the aforesaid CR No. 90 of 2011. However, the stipulation made in the aforesaid order dated 22.08.2007 in respect of CMP No. 31 of 2007 that “whatever ...3... addition, construction or alteration respondent No. 1 makes with respect to the property in question, the same shall abide by the result of the petition” shall inure for the purpose of the aforesaid Civil Revision No. 90 of 2011. Let a copy of this order be placed on the file of CR No. 90 of 2011. The requisitioned record be retained for the purpose of disposal of CR No. 90 of 2011. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 6th December, 2011 (virender)