Disposed¶28

Bhani Ram v. Raj Kumar and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Aug 2025CMPMO/725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; CMPMO No.725 of 2024; Bhani Ram v. Raj Kumar and others; decided 13 August 2025 by Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (oral). Keywords: status quo; Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC; interim injunction; temporary injunction; right of way; easementary right; easement; path; Khasra No.1263/308/1; Panchayat-constructed path; public money; irreparable loss; balance of convenience; appellate court reversal of trial court order; restoration of status quo; findings confined to petition; civil suit pending; Sub Divisional Magistrate complaint; heavy cost if suit fails.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo as was directed by the learned Trial Court during trial; the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is set aside to that extent. ¶28

Bhani Ram Vs Raj Kumar and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Appellate Court erred in setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court (in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2) directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature, possession, user and construction of the path on Khasra No.1263/308/1. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

This Court held that the learned Appellate Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court's status quo order: since the issue in the Civil Suit is one of right of way, any permanent construction carried out over the said area by the defendant in the interregnum would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff, whereas maintenance of status quo would not hamper either party's interest (and the plaintiff can be levied with heavy cost if the suit fails).

¶25

Ratio / Principle

This Court did not concur with the respondent's submission that the Panchayat had built the path solely for the respondent's benefit; it found it apparent that a path exists on the disputed land, constructed by the Panchayat (rightly or wrongly), and that it was being used by the petitioner.

¶24

Key takeaways

Clarification: the findings returned by this Court in adjudicating this petition are only for the purpose of deciding this petition, and the learned Court below shall not be influenced by them while dealing with the Civil Suit.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim injunction / status quo – restoration of Trial Court's Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 direction. In a CMPMO before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (Ajay Mohan Goel, J., oral judgment dated 13.08.2025), the petitioner challenged the learned Appellate Court's order setting aside the Trial Court's direction to maintain status quo qua the nature, possession, user and construction of a path on Khasra No.1263/308/1. The respondent claimed ownership of the land and asserted that the path was built by the Panchayat solely for his benefit; the Court rejected this, holding it apparent that a Panchayat-constructed path existed on the disputed land and was being used by the petitioner. As the pending Civil Suit concerned a right of way, the Court held that permanent construction over the area in the interregnum would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff while status quo would prejudice neither party. The petition was disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo as ordered by the Trial Court, and the impugned appellate order was set aside to that extent, with an express clarification that the Court's findings were confined to deciding the petition and would not influence the Court below in the Civil Suit.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No.725 of 2024 Decided on 13^th August, 2025

Bhani Ram

…Petitioner

Versus

Raj Kumar and others

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

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

¶10

For the petitioner: Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate.

¶11

For the respondents: Mr. M.C. Jamwal, Advocate.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶13

By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached

¶14

this Court feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the order that was passed by the learned Trial Court in an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession and user and construction in respect of path existing upon Khasra No.1263/308/1 has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

¶16

also gone through the judgment under challenge as well as the

¶17

¶18

order passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶19

The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the learned Appellate Court gravely erred in not appreciating that the path in issue was being used by the petitioner and as interference was caused by the respondent in the use thereof, learned Trial Court correctly directed the parties to maintain status quo. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has easementary right to use the path in issue and this extremely important aspect of the matter has also been ignored by the learned Appellate Court while setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶21

respondent submitted that the respondent is the owner in possession of the land upon which the path is being claimed by the petitioner. He further stated at the bar that when the respondent had met with a fatal accident by the use of force, path was created on his land by the Panchayat. When confronted with the said statement made in the Court that is the respondent

¶22

admitting the factum of a path being there on the land of the respondent, learned counsel stated that this road in fact was built

¶23

¶24

by the Panchayat upon the private land of the respondent for the sole benefit of the respondent. This Court does not concurs with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. It fails to understand as to why the Panchayat would spend public money for the purpose of the construction of a public path upon private property and that too for the benefit of private individuals. Thus, it is apparent that there appears to be a path on the disputed land which rightly or wrongly has been constructed by the Panchayat and which was being used by the petitioner.

¶25

In the said backdrop, if one peruses the impugned order, obviously, it appears that the learned Appellate Court has erred in not appreciating this extremely aspect of the matter and more so in the light of the fact that the petitioner had even approached the administrative authorities including Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned in this regard. Further, as the issue involved in the Civil Suit is of the right of way, obviously, if any permanent construction is carried out over the said area by the defendant in the interregnum, it indeed will cause irreparable loss as far the cause of the plaintiff is concerned. On the other hand, maintenance of status quo will not hamper the interest of

¶26

¶27

either of the parties and in case the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the Civil Suit, obviously, the plaintiff can be levied with heavy cost.

¶28

Accordingly, in the light of above observations, this petition is disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo as was directed by the learned Trial Court during trial and the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court to this extent is set aside. However, it is clarified that the findings that have been returned by this Court in the course of the adjudication on this care are only for the purpose of deciding this petition and

¶29

the learned Court below shall not be influenced by the same while dealing the Civil Suit.

¶30

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶31

August 13, 2025 (Vinod)

Bhani Ram v. Raj Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhani Ram v. Raj Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Subash Kumar Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Sunder Singh Vs Dassi Devi

Hari Chand Vs State of Hp and Other

Gopal Sood Vs Poonam Jaswal

Chander Prakash Vs State of Hp and Others