Prem Dutt & Ors vs Harish Kumar & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 958 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Prem Dutt & Ors vs Harish Kumar & Ors on 16 May, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.504/2024.

Date of Decision: 16th May, 2025.

     Prem Dutt & Ors.                                                 .....Petitioners
                                           Versus

      Harish Kumar & Ors.                                          .....Respondents
      Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioners: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate, for the respondents.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The present petition has been filed against the

impugned order dated 29.07.2024, passed by the learned

Additional District Judge(I), Solan, HP and order dated

27.05.2024, passed in CMA No.50/6 of 2024 by the Ld. Senior

Civil Judge Kasauli, HP.

2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the

pleadings.

3. Grant of an injunction during the pendency of the

proceedings pertains to the equitable jurisdiction of the Court.

In the case at hand, the trial Court has refused to exercise

discretion in favour of the present petitioners on account of

their conduct, as relevant material based on which parties were

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

put in possession of the respective lands was not placed on

record by the petitioners while filing the suit.

4. The Appellate Court in an appeal preferred challenging

the discretion exercised by the trial Court refused to set aside

the judgment passed by the trial Court. The findings returned

by both the Courts below while deciding the application under

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and adjudicating the appeal

preferred under Order 43 are purely for the purpose of

adjudicating the interim application. Findings recorded therein

does not preclude the trial Court from arriving at a different

conclusion after completion of the trial.

5. The present petition has been preferred under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a

restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the

correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227

of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave

dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of

fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of

justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the

other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-

weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting

every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final

finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible.

(See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. &

another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash

Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181).

6. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein

above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made

out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the

present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also

stand disposed of.

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

16th May, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)