Dismissed¶29

Subhash Chand v. Shalu Sharma

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2025CMPMO/639/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Order XLIII, Rule 1 CPC; interim injunction application dismissed; temporary injunction; wall obstructing passage; allegation repeated in 2018 writ and representation to Municipal Corporation; findings not perverse; supervisory jurisdiction; petition lost efficacy after 2 1/2 years pendency; Senior Civil Judge Sunder Nagar; Additional District Judge Sunder Nagar; District Mandi, H.P.; CMPMO No. 639 of 2022; Subhash Chand versus Smt. Shalu Verma; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla.

What did the court decide?

The petition, pending adjudication for more than 2 1/2 years with no interim order having been granted when the petitioner first approached this Court, has now lost its efficacy. ¶18

Subhash Chand Vs Shalu Sharma — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders of the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court suffered from infirmity or perversity such as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

No infirmity was found in the orders of the Courts below: the Trial Court had assigned reasons for refusing interim relief (reference to the earlier withdrawn suit and writ, and the fact that the allegation of a recently constructed obstructing wall could not prima facie be said to be of recent nature since the same allegation was made in 2018 in the writ and representation to the Municipal Corporation), the Appellate Court reiterated those facts, and the findings could not be demonstrated to be perverse or not borne out from the record.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petition, pending adjudication for more than 2 1/2 years with no interim order having been granted when the petitioner first approached this Court, has now lost its efficacy.

¶18

Key takeaways

In exercise of the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings returned by the learned Courts below.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) dismissed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging (i) order dated 29.04.2022 of the Senior Civil Judge, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. (CMA No. 128-VI/2021 in Civil Suit No. 108/2021) rejecting the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and (ii) judgment dated 21.10.2022 of the Additional District Judge, Sunder Nagar (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2022) dismissing the appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 CPC. Held: the Trial Court had assigned reasons for refusing interim relief — the earlier suit by the plaintiff stood withdrawn, a writ had been filed, and the plea that the defendant recently constructed a wall (March, 2021) obstructing the passage could not prima facie be accepted since the same allegation had been made in a 2018 writ and representation to the Municipal Corporation; the Appellate Court reiterated these facts; the findings were neither demonstrated to be perverse nor contrary to the record. Further, the petition pending over 2 1/2 years, with no interim order having been granted at inception, had lost its efficacy. Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2025:HHC:32503

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CMPMO No. 639 of 2022 Decided on : 18.09.2025

Subhash Chand

…Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Shalu Verma

…Respondent

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

¶10

For the petitioner : M/s Sanjeev Sood and Rahul Gathania, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶11

By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 29.04.2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., in CMA No. 128-VI/2021, in Civil Suit No. 108/2021, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner herein, under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of

¶12

the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), was dismissed as well as judgment dated 21.10.2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sunder Nagar, District

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

2025:HHC:32503

¶16

Mandi, H.P, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2022, titled Subhash Chand Versus Smt. Shalu Sharma, in terms whereof, an Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the learend Trial Court, under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the CPC, was also dismissed.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court.

¶18

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned orders, was filed by the petitioner before this Court in the month of December, 2022. While issuing notice to the respondent, no stay was granted by the Court, meaning thereby, that as from the date of the filing of the suit, there is no interim in favour of the petitioner. This petition is also pending adjudication for more than 2 ½ years and in light of the fact that earlier no interim was granted to the petitioner when he approached this Court initially, obviously, this petition has now lost its efficacy.

¶19

Further, having carefully gone through the order and

¶20

¶21

2025:HHC:32503

¶22

judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court, respectively, otherwise also, this Court finds no infirmity therein. Learned Trial Court has assigned reasons as to why interim was not granted to the petitioner. Learned Trial Court has given reference of the earlier litigation between the parties i.e. the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff himself, which was withdrawn as well as the subsequent writ that was filed in the Court. Learned Trial Court has also mentioned that though what was being stated in the plaint was that the defendant has recently constructed a wall in the month of March, 2021, obstructing the passage of the plaintiff, however, prima facie, it could not be said that the said construction was of recent nature, because in the year 2018 also in the writ as well as the representation filed by the petitioner to the Municipal Corporation, the same allegation was made by the Court. 5. Similarly, the learned Appellate Court while upholding the order passed by the learned Trial Court, has reiterated the said facts. It could not be demonstrated before this Court that the findings returned by the learned Courts below were perverse and not borne out from the record. In light

¶23

¶24

2025:HHC:32503

¶25

of this fact, this Court is of the considered view that in exercise

¶26

of power conferred upon it under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶27

of India, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings returned by the learned Courts below.

¶28