M/S Acc Ltd. Gagal Cement Works Vs Hardei and Others

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CM D	PMO No. 57 of 2026 ecided on : 11.05.2026
M/s ACC Ltd.	_ ….Petitioner
	Versus
Hardei & Ors.	....Respondents
______________________ Coram:	___________________________________
The Hon’ble Mr. Jus Whether approved fo For the petitioners	tice Romesh Verma. Judge. r reporting?¹ : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, and Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate.
For the respondents	Mr. B.R. Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
:	Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.5

¶4

Romesh Verma, Judge(oral)

¶5

The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur dated 16.01.2026, which reads as under:

¶6

“After going through the averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit coupled with the pleadings of the parties before the Id. Trial Court placed on record, it prima facie shows that the respondent is plying heavy trucks and transporting cement and clinker and interfering with the right of passage of the

¶7

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

¶8

2

¶9

applicants and obstructing the applicants from using the same in the land comprised in khasra No. 88, khata/khatoni No. 218min/240 min land measuring 4-2 bighas situated in village Khater, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. There exists a legal right in favour of the applicants. As such, the respondent/defendant is restrained from plying the heavy trucks and transporting the cement and clinker through the suit land till the next date of hearing i.e. 03.03.2026. Reply be also filed by that date.”

¶10

The brief facts of the case are that the private

¶11

respondents /plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the present petitioner/defendant No.1 and the state of HP seeking a decree for declaration that the plaintiffs/ respondents have acquired a right of easement by prescription over Khasra No. 88 Khata No. 218 min /240 min land measuring 4-2 bighas situated in village Khater, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. and to restrain the defendant No.1/petitioner from obstructing the plaintiffs use thereof. Further, they sought a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant No.1 through its agents, employees, contractors or any other person acting on its behalf for from plying heavy trucks or transporting cement/clinker

¶12

3

¶13

on khsara No.88 Khata No. 218 min /240 min land measuring 4-2 bighas situated in village Khater, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur,

¶14

Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.,C was filed by the plaintiffs, which was duly resisted by the present petitioner/defendant No.1.

¶15

The learned Civil Judge, Bilaspur, vide its order dated 31.12.2025 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent .

¶16

Feeling dissatisfied the plaintiff assailed the said order by filing an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. The first Appellate Court vide its order dated 16.01.2026 in ad interim order restrained the defendant No. 1/petitioner from plying the heavy trucks and transporting the cement/ clinker to the suit land till next date i.e 3.3.2026.

¶17

Today, when the case was listed, Mr. B.R. Verma, Advocate,has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents. He has stated that since the ad-interim order was passed by the learned District Judge, till 3.3.2026, therefore, the present petition has become infructuous.

¶18

4

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case file carefully.

¶20

Since the main appeal is pending before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, therefore, without touching and expressing anything on the merits of the case, at hand, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the first appellate Court to decide and to take the same to its logical end within a period of three months from today. Ordered accordingly.

¶21

Before parting, it is made clear that till the time, appeal is finally decided by the learned first appellate Court, interim order, which was passed by this Court on 13.2.2026 and further extended on 23.3.2026, 1.4.2026, shall remain in operation during the pendency of appeal.

¶22

The petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶23

(Romesh Verma), Judge

¶24

11^th May, 2026 (veena)

¶25

5

M/S Acc Ltd. Gagal Cement Works v. Hardei and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Acc Ltd. Gagal Cement Works v. Hardei 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

Jaiwanti and Others Vs Kamla Devi and Others

NHAI Vs Joginder Pal alias Yogender Pal

Gurdas S/O Ghethlu Ram Vs Nipun Jindal

Maya Poddar and Anr. Vs Pardeep Aggarwal

Baldev Raj Vs Vinod Kumar

Jai Parkash Vs Nipun Jindal and Anr.