Himachal Pradesh High Court
RSA/16/2024 on 8 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
2026:HHC:44448 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
RSA No. 16/2024
Decided on: 08.10.2026
Dev Raj
….Appellant
Versus
Durga Dass & ors.
…Respondents ________________________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Saurav Rattan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate, (through V.C.) for respondent No.1.
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)
It is heartening to note that with the intervention of the learned Mediator and the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the dispute, as involved in instant appeal has been settled inter se the parties.
The facts, as emerge in the present case, are that the plaintiff Durga Dass filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Dehra, District Kangra (H.P.) on 10.06.2015, thereby restraining the defendants from digging or raising any type of construction or 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
laying foundation, cutting, felling, removing any tree or changing the nature of the suit land, comprised in Khata No. 22, Khatoni No.51, Khasra Nos.107, 109, 111, 112, 117, 702/131, 163, 166, 168, 173, 181, 711/213, 215, 713/216, 716/217, 234, 235, 721/236, 261, 267, 493, 498, 499, 501, 504, 505, Kita 26 total area 01-62-00 Hects, situated in Mohal Katyalu, Mauza Gummer, Tehsil Jawalamukhi, Distt. Kangra, H.P, till the partition of the suit land along with mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the suit land to its original position if they forcibly raised any construction over any portion of the suit land during the pendency of the suit.
The said suit came to be resisted by the defendants and all the averments, as contained in the plaint, were specifically refuted and denied.
The learned trial Court after framing the issues on 17.09.2018, directed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions to corroborate their respective case. The learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 11.04.2019 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction, thereby restraining the defendants from digging or raising any type of construction, cutting, felling removing any tree on the suit land till partition and suit of the plaintiff was also decreed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the suit land to its original position by removing retaining wall, iron gate and tin shed, raised on the suit land during the pendency of suit.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 11.04.2019, one of the defendants, i.e. defendant No.1 namely, Dev Raj, preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court on 07.12.2022, which too came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2023.
Still feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgments and decrees, appellant, Dev Raj, has preferred the present regular second appeal, by invoking Section 100 of the CPC.
During the pendency of the appeal, with the consent of the parties and their respective counsels, the matter was sent to the mediation of learned Senior Advocate, Mr. N. K. Sood and with his efforts and able assistance of the learned counsel of the parties, now the case has been settled inter se the parties. The compromise deed has been placed on record as Ext. C1, wherein terms and conditions thereof have been incorporated.
It has been agreed upon by the respective parties, vide their separate statements recorded in the Court, that they shall remain bound by the terms and conditions, as incorporated in the compromise deed, Ext. C1 and based upon that compromise, they shall act upon in future.
It has further been agreed upon that none of the parties shall obviate or deviate from any of the terms and conditions, as have been stipulated in the compromise and in the event of doing so, the erring party shall be liable to be dealt with under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of as having been compromised on the basis of the compromise deed Ext. C1, which is made part and parcel of the decree. The registry is directed to frame the decree in terms of the compromise deed, Ext. C1. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Romesh Verma) 08th October, 2026
Judge (pankaj)