Sanjeevan Kumar vs Bhupinder Sood
2023 Latest Caselaw 5848 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.147/2023 in RSA No. 454/2015

.

                                      Decided on: 15.05.2023





    Sanjeevan Kumar                                 ....Applicant
                           Versus
    Bhupinder Sood                             ......Respondent

....................................................................................... Coram The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1

For the applicant: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.

For respondent: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for the non-applicant/respondent.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Applicant is the appellant in RSA No.454/2015. The

applicant's (petitioner's) complaint is that the non-

applicant/respondent has violated the interim order dated

30.12.2015 passed in CMP No.10028/2015 filed in RSA

No.454/2015, wherein parties were directed "to maintain status quo

qua the nature and possession of the suit land during the pendency

of the appeal in this Court with liberty to the parties to approach this

Court for modification, altercation and vacation of this order, if so

advised." Applicant's case is that after the passing of the said order,

the non-applicant/respondent had collected the construction

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

material on the site with an intention to raise construction over the

suit land, hence the application.

.

2. The non-applicant/respondent in his reply filed to the

application has pleaded that no construction per se has been raised

by him over the suit land. However, in December 2022, the

backside wall of the already constructed shop was plastered by him

under compelling circumstances. Learned counsel for the non-

applicant/respondent has submitted that already constructed shop

is not the subject matter of the suit, whereas the interim order dated

30.12.2015 pertained to the suit land. With this understanding, the

non-applicant/respondent had plastered the back wall of the already

constructed shop. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that the non-applicant/respondent will be careful in future and will

not undertake any construction over the suit land as well as on the

back walls adjoining thereto without taking permission from the

Court. This statement is noted.

Taking into consideration the fact that the non-

applicant/respondent has stopped himself at the stage of plastering

the back walls of the already existing shop & in view of the

aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the non-

applicant/respondent that no further construction shall be raised by

the respondent over the suit land as well as on the back walls

adjoining to the suit land without taking permission from the Court,

therefore taking a lenient view, these proceedings are dropped at

this stage. Application to stand disposed of.

.

                                                        Jyotsna Rewal Dua





                                                            Judge
    15th May 2023
           (rohit)





                        r       to