Dismissed¶20

Hans Raj and Ors. v. Simro Devi and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Sept 2025CMPMO/193/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction not appellate; no interference where order is a possible view; perversity test; police assistance for implementation of ad interim injunction refused; liberty under Order XXXIX Rule 2A Civil Procedure Code; trial uninfluenced by observations; Hans Raj and others v. Simro Devi and others; CMPMO No. 193 of 2021; decided 03.09.2025; 2025:HHC:29961; Himachal Pradesh High Court Shimla; Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the petitioners were granted liberty to approach the Court under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, if so advised, subject to all just exceptions and the legal rights of the respondents; the trial is to proceed uninfluenced by the observations in the petition; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

Hans Raj and Ors. Vs Simro Devi and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 06.05.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the petitioners' application for police assistance for implementation of the ad interim injunction order is perverse and calls for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

Court's answer

On hearing counsel and perusing the impugned order, the Court finds no perversity in the Trial Court's order rejecting the application for police assistance, in terms of the reasons assigned therein.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

In exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court; where the view taken by the Court below is one of the possible views on the facts before it, interference is unwarranted.

¶19

Key takeaways

The impugned order does not demonstrate perversity because its findings were substantiated by the learned Court below on the basis of the material on record; accordingly the Court saw no reason to interfere.ratio¶20
It was clarified that the trial before the learned Trial Court shall be conducted uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in the petition.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Shimla), single Bench of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., dismissed a CMPMO (No. 193 of 2021, decided 03.09.2025) assailing the Trial Court's order dated 06.05.2021 rejecting the petitioners' application for police assistance for implementation of an ad interim injunction. Reiterating that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court and will not disturb an order that is one of the possible views on the record, the Court held the impugned order free of perversity as its findings rested on the material on record. Liberty was left open to the petitioners to move under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code, and the ongoing trial was directed to proceed uninfluenced by any observation made in the petition.

¶1

2025:HHC:29961

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CMPMO No. 193 of 2021 Decided on : 03.09.2025

¶4

Hans Raj and others

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Simro Devi and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Vashishat, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Respondent No.3 exparte.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶13

By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 06.05.2021 (Annexure P-7), passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioners for providing police assistance for implementation of the ad interim injunction order, was dismissed.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

2025:HHC:29961

¶18

having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that there is no perversity therein, in terms of the reasons assigned in the order as to why the application was rejected by the learned Court below.

¶19

It is settled law that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, this Court is not to act as an Appellate Court and if the view taken by the learned Court below is one of the views, which is possible on the basis of the facts before it, then this Court need not interfere with the same, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

As the impugned order per se, does not demonstrate that it is perverse because the findings returned therein, have been substantiated by the learned Court below on the basis of material on record, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the said order and therefore, the petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the trial be conducted by the learned Trial Court uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in this petition.

¶21