The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the dismissal of an application to replace windows with doors. Following a status quo order, the Court held that replacing windows with doors would change the nature of the suit property.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 659 of 2022 Date of Decision: 23.12.2022
_____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Jiwan Lal ……...Petitioners Sh. Acchru Ram and Anr.
……...Petitioners …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Nemo.
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 2.11.2022, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in CS No. 251 of 2020, whereby an application filed under Section 151 CPC, praying therein permission to fix the doors in place of windows for entry to personal rooms and carrying out necessary repairs, came to be dismissed, petitioner-plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid order.
2
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds that petitionerplaintiff while filing suit for partition also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the suit land. Court below while acceding to the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner-plaintiff directed the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, possession and alienation over the suit land till further orders. 3. After passing of the aforesaid order in the application, petitioner-plaintiff filed application under Section 151 CPC, seeking therein permission to replace the doors in place of windows, however such prayer was rejected by the court below on the ground that status quo order has been passed on the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, wherein he sought the relief to the effect that respondents be restrained for changing the nature of the suit property.
4. Since court below has already passed status quo order restraining both the parties from raising any kind of construction over the suit land during the pendency of the appeal, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the court below while allowing the application seeking therein permission to replace the windows by doors because if
3
permission, if any, for fixation of doors in place of windows is granted, it would change the nature of the suit property.
5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
December 23, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition to replace windows with doors to fix the doors in personal rooms can be allowed without changing the nature of the suit property.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application under Section 151 CPC restricting replacement of windows with doors under status quo can be quashed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sh. Jiwan Lal and Anr.
Sh. Acchru Ram
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
