BALDEV SINGH & OTHERS Vs. SANGAT SINGH & OTHERS
LAWS(HPH)-2018-3-22
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 12,2018

Baldev Singh and Others Appellant
VERSUS
Sangat Singh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SANDEEP SHARMA, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.3.2017, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh( Camp at Paonta Sahib) in CMA No.3-N/14 of 2017, affirming the order dated 21.12.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in CMA No.166/6 of 2016 in Civil Suit No.194/1 of 2016, whereby an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs'), praying therein for restraining the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants') from sowing, ploughing, occupying or Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment creating any obstruction over the path measuring 2 gathas, comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.66min/88min, Khasra No.141/17, situated in village Kundio, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. ( hereinafter referred to the 'suit land') came to be dismissed, has approached this Court by way of instant petition.
(2.) Facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiffs filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1, Paonta Sahib for permanent prohibitory injunction alongwith an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, restraining the defendants from sowing, ploughing, occupying or creating any kind of obstruction over the suit land. Application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of ad-interim injunction came to be decided on 21.12.2016, whereby aforesaid prayer for restraining the defendants was rejected.
(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs preferred Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however fact remains that same was dismissed, as a consequence of which, order dated 21.12.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P in CMA No.194/1 of 2016, came to be upheld.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.