HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 353 of 2010 Decided on: 14.3.2011 Ram Swaroop and others ……… Petitioners. Versus Ramesh Kumar ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners: Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Rupender Singh, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, dated 29.7.2010, in an appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nahan, dated 6.12.2008, whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for injunction as against the present petitioners, who were impleaded as defendants. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was also filed before the learned trial Court for the grant of an injunction as against the defendants restraining them from raising any construction over the suit land till disposal of the main suit. The said application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide his impugned order, which order, on appeal, was affirmed by the - 2 - learned Additional District Judge, against which the present petition has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The fact that the land had reverted back to the land owners from the State of H.P. and all the co-owners are the right holders in the suit land has not been disputed by both the parties. Both the parties are the right holders and no exclusive possession of either party has been recorded. The petitioners claim that their construction in the form of one storey is already there and further construction was started by the petitioners, against which the application for grant of stay was filed. A reference has also been made to the statement of the respondent/plaintiff Ramesh Kumar in which also he had admitted that there is one storeyed pucca house of the defendants over the suit land but the same is not complete. Till the land, in question, was partitioned in between the parties and no exclusive possession was recorded, the defendants have no right to raise further construction over the suit land. The injunction was granted by the learned trial Court and these findings were affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. The jurisdiction of this Court is very limited in looking into this question and until and unless it is proved, prima facie, that the order suffers from an illegality, then only this Court is required to interfere in the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court. Therefore, no case is made out for interference, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the impugned order passed by - 3 - the learned Additional District Judge affirming the order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality calling for an interference by this Court. 5. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners, which is dismissed accordingly. The parties through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the learned trial Court on 5.4.2011. The Registry is directed to send the records of the case alongwith a copy of this judgment to the learned trial Court so as to reach there well before the date fixed. The learned trial Court shall also try to dispose of the case, as far as possible, by 31st December, 2011. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. March 14, 2011. (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge