CMPMO/241/2025 on 3 August 2026

2026:HHC:32074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.241 of 2025

Reserved on: 30.07.2026

Date of decision:.03.08.2026

Vandana Chugh & others

...Petitioners

Versus

Dinesh Kumari & others

...Respondents

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Upasna Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 4.

Respondent No.2 ex parte.

Romesh Verma, Judge:

The instant petition arises out of the judgment as passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan dated 28.02.2025, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioners/plaintiffs was ordered to be dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP dated 29.08.2024 was affirmed, whereby the application filed by the Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

-2- 2026:HHC:32074

plaintiffs under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was ordered to be dismissed.

2. The facts, as emerge in the present case, are that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit for grant of decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove their locks having been put illegally and forcibly on the tenanted shop situated in Mohalla Rajender Nagar, Ward No. 8 and restoring its possession to the plaintiffs by putting them in occupation thereof. As per the case as set up by the plaintiffs, one Smt.Nirmala Devi Sharma, wife of late Shri Baldev Sharma, being the landlady of the shop, let out the premises to late Shri Chaman Lal for Rs 1,200 per month on rent basis in November 1989. Late Shri Chaman Lal was the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 and he started the business of cloth in the said shop in the name and style of M/s Chugh Traders. During the lifetime of late Shri Chaman Lal, plaintiff No. 1 used to sit with him in the tenanted shop and also used to assist him in the business affairs. After the death of late Shri Chaman Lal, proprietor of plaintiff No.3 M/s Chugh Traders, a rent petition was filed for the eviction of the tenanted premises, which came to be compromised on 30.05.1996. Wooden almirahas were affixed in the suit property, which had become old enough and termites had destroyed all such wooden almirahas including the cloth of the plaintiffs kept therein. During the intervening night of 05/06.08.2022, defendant No.1, who

-3- 2026:HHC:32074

happens to be doing tailoring work in the adjoining shop, put her locks on both sides of the disputed shop.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they approached defendant No.1 with a request to remove the locks, but she failed to accede to the request as made by the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1, instead of accepting the request, became aggressive and abusive and refused to oblige the plaintiffs in any manner. The plaintiffs kept on arranging meetings with their well-wishers and office-bearers of the Vyapar Mandal in order to persuade the defendant, but to no avail. On 13.08.2022, the plaintiffs requested defendant No.1 to restore the possession of the suit property along with the material of the plaintiffs kept therein, but all efforts proved futile. Ultimately, plaintiff No.1 filed a written complaint dated 13.08.2022 at Police Station Nahan. At the instance and instructions of SP Sirmaur at Nahan, FIR No. 94/2022 dated 14.08.2022 under Sections 456, 506 and 34 of the IPC came to be registered against defendant No.1 and others.

4. As per the plaintiffs, the defendants committed an offence and indulged in taking the law into their own hands, thereby forcibly and illegally dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property. The plaintiffs are entitled to get the restoration of occupation and possession of the suit property and the material belonging to the plaintiffs kept therein along with the tools of the mistri.

-4- 2026:HHC:32074

5. Therefore, under such circumstances, the plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction with a prayer that the defendants be directed to restore the occupation and possession of the suit property along with the goods/material of the plaintiffs and tools of the mistris kept therein, with a consequential relief of restraining the defendants permanently from changing the nature of the suit property and further transferring its possession by way of lease, tenancy, or otherwise to any person.

6. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for the grant of an ad interim injunction. In the application, a prayer was made that the non-applicants/defendants be directed to restore the occupation and possession of the suit property along with the goods/material of the plaintiffs/applicants and tools of the mistris kept therein to the applicants.

7. The suit as instituted by the plaintiffs came to be resisted by the defendants by raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, enforceability, suppression of material facts, estoppel, undervaluation, locus standi, etc. On merits, all the averments as made in the plaint were categorically and specifically denied. As per the case as set up by the defendants, plaintiff No.1 voluntarily vacated the disputed shop on 01.08.2022 and shifted all her material from the shop into a nearby shop for approximately one month. Having mala fide intentions, plaintiff No.1 on 07.08.2022 started demanding the

-5- 2026:HHC:32074

disputed shop from the defendants, stating that she was not getting any other shop to run her business, to which the defendants flatly refused.

8. As per the defendants, plaintiff No.1 started giving threats to the defendants that she would implicate them in a false case if they did not hand over the possession of the shop. In consequence of the same, an FIR bearing No.94 of 2022 dated 14.08.2022 under Sections 456, 506, and 34 of the IPC came to be registered against defendant No.1 in connivance with police officials. Therefore, after denying the allegations as made in the plaint, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit as filed by the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, wherein all the allegations as made were denied and the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the application for the grant of an ad interim injunction.

9. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP, vide its order dated 29.08.2024, dismissed the application as filed by the plaintiffs/present petitioners.

10. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiffs approached the court of the learned District Judge, Sirmaur by filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC on 25.09.2024. The learned first appellate Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 28.02.2025, dismissed the appeal as filed by the plaintiffs.

-6- 2026:HHC:32074

11. Still feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned judgment/order. 12

It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Deepak Kaushal, assisted by Mr.Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the impugned judgment/order as passed by the learned Courts below is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the plaintiffs/petitioners have been able to make out a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction, therefore, the application as filed by the plaintiffs ought to have been allowed. He further submits that the learned Courts below have not appreciated the point in controversy in its right perspective and have passed the impugned judgment/order without taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case. He submitted that, after accepting the present petition, the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC deserves to be allowed.

13. On the other hand, Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Ms.Upasna Thakur, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 4, has defended the impugned judgment/order as passed by the learned Courts below. He submitted that both Courts have rightly passed the order after appreciating the point in controversy and while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of

-7- 2026:HHC:32074

the Constitution of India, this Court will not interfere in the well- reasoned judgment/order.

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

15. The plaintiffs/petitioners approached the learned trial court for grant of decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove their locks having been put forcibly on the tenanted shop situated in Mohalla Rajender Nagar, Ward No. 8 and to restore its possession to the plaintiffs by putting them in occupation.

16. As per the case as set up by the plaintiffs, one late Smt. Nirmala Devi Sharma inducted the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 on monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- as a tenant in November 1989. It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the lifetime of late Shri Chaman Lal, the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1, he used to run the business of cloth under the name and style of M/s Chugh Traders and after his death, plaintiff No.1, being his daughter-in-law, carried on the said business in the shop.

17. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in order to prejudice the rights of the plaintiffs, on the intervening night of 05/06.08.2022, defendant No.1, who happens to be doing tailoring work, put her locks on both sides of the disputed shop. As per the plaintiffs, though plaintiff No.1 tried to approach defendant No.1 with a request to remove the locks which she had put on the disputed shop, however,

-8- 2026:HHC:32074

instead of accepting the request of the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 became aggressive and abusive and refused to oblige plaintiff No.1. Thereafter, as per the plaintiffs, they kept on arranging meetings, including the office-bearers of the Vyapar Mandal and tried to persuade the defendants, but to no avail.

18. On 13.08.2022, the plaintiffs requested defendant No.1 to restore the possession of the suit property, but the defendants failed to do so, and ultimately, plaintiff No.1 filed a written complaint on 13.08.2022 at Police Station Nahan. At the instance and instructions of SP Sirmaur, FIR No. 94/2022 dated 14.08.2022 under Sections 456, 506, and 34 of the IPC came to be registered against defendant No.1 and others.

19. Therefore, it was alleged by the plaintiffs that they have been forcibly and illegally dispossessed from the suit property. Hence, they are entitled to the grant of decree directing the restoration of the occupation and possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs, with consequential relief of restraining the defendants permanently from changing the nature of the suit property and further transferring its possession by way of lease, tenancy, or otherwise to any person or persons.

20. The said case of the plaintiffs has been specifically and vehemently denied by the defendants in their written statement. All allegations of forcible dispossession have been denied and as per the

-9- 2026:HHC:32074

case of the defendants, the plaintiffs voluntarily and on their own vacated the disputed shop on 01.08.2022 and shifted their material into a nearby shop for approximately one month.

21. It is the case of the defendants that with a mala fide intention, after some time, i.e., on 07.08.2022, plaintiff No.1 again started demanding the said shop from the defendants, stating that she was not getting any other shop to run her business, to which the defendants flatly refused. In order to pressurize the defendants, false FIR No. 94/2022 dated 14.08.2022 under Sections 456, 506, and 34 of the IPC came to be registered against defendant No.1 and others in connivance with the police.

22. In order to get the relief of an injunction, the plaintiffs have to pass the triplicate test of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. In the present case, admittedly, as per the case of the plaintiffs, they are out of possession and as per the case projected by them, the defendants have illegally and unlawfully put locks on both sides of the shop.

23. The contents of the plaint reveal that a stand has been taken by the plaintiffs that the defendants committed an offence and indulged in taking the law into their own hands, thereby forcibly and illegally dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property. Therefore, they are entitled to get the restoration of the occupation and possession of the suit property and the material belonging to them

-10- 2026:HHC:32074

kept therein, along with the tools of the mistris/labourers. The said averment as made by the plaintiffs in the instant suit is contrary to the suit which has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the grant of recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 5,19,500/-.

24. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to para 6 of the another suit filed for damages, whereby it has been stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs were unlawfully and forcibly dispossessed from the disputed shop. Thereafter, in order to save the goods from perishing or becoming useless, they had to take a shop in the same vicinity near Bara Chowk Nahan on rent from Smt. Bindu Gupta at a monthly rent of Rs 28,000/- urgently, as the plaintiffs had no other alternative and under great pressure and need, vide rent deed dated 01.09.2022, from where the tenancy of the shop was started.

25. The said submission of the plaintiffs in the suit for damages is in contradiction to the averments as made in the case in hand, because in the present case, it is the case of the plaintiffs that after forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit shop, the possession of the plaintiffs be restored and in case the occupation and possession along with the material are not restored to the plaintiffs, then they shall suffer huge and irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by any amount of money. However, that stand is totally in conflict with the averments as made in the plaint which has been

-11- 2026:HHC:32074

filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the grant of damages, wherein it has been categorically stated that in order to save the goods from perishing or becoming useless, they had taken a shop in the same vicinity near Bada Chowk Nahan on rent from Smt. Bindu Gupta for a monthly rent of Rs 28,000/-.

26. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the pleas being taken by the plaintiffs in both suits are mutually destructive is sustainable in the eyes of law. The said contradiction in the pleadings draws an inference that it is the present defendants who are in possession of the suit property and probably, the shop must have been vacated by the plaintiffs. In order to get an order of injunction, possession is pari materia. Therefore, the defendants have been able to establish that they are in possession of the suit property.

27. Another aspect in the present case which has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents is that, as per the allegations levelled in the plaint, plaintiff No.1 was dispossessed from the suit property on 05/06.08.2022. However, surprisingly, the FIR which has been placed on record in the present proceedings shows that the same came to be registered on 14.08.2022, i.e., after lapse of more than 9 days.

28. In common parlance, in case any person is evicted from his/her shop, he or she shall report the matter to the police authorities

-12- 2026:HHC:32074

immediately, either on the same day or the next day. But in the present case, for at least 9 days, the plaintiffs kept quiet and did not take any action against the defendants. The said fact draws an adverse inference against the plaintiffs and gives credence to the version of the defendants that the plaintiffs voluntarily surrendered the tenancy and handed over the possession of the suit shop to them.

29. The case as projected by the plaintiffs that they have been forcibly dispossessed from the suit shop in an illegal manner has been denied by the defendants, raising a triable issue to be determined by the learned trial Court.

30. As rightly held by the learned Courts below, till the time the suit is finally adjudicated on the strength of the pleadings and the evidence, it cannot be determined while deciding the injunction application whether the plaintiffs were forcibly dispossessed or whether they surrendered the tenancy in favour of the defendants voluntarily.

31. A perusal of the pleadings as made in the plaint and the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC shows that the main relief sought in the civil suit is being sought in the interim injunction application. It is a well-settled principle of law that while determining an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, the final relief sought in the civil suit cannot be granted to the plaintiff.

32. The prayer of the plaintiffs in the plaint reads as follows:

-13- 2026:HHC:32074

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of the facts and circumstance submit herein above a decree of mandatory injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, directing them to restore the occupation and possession of the suit property shown in rough site plan with red ink in Annexure "A-1" alongwith the goods/material of the plaintiffs and tools of the mistris kept therein to the plaintiffs with a consequential relief of restraining the defendants permanently from changing the nature of the suit property and further transferring its possession by way of lease or tenancy or otherwise to any person or persons. The cost of the suit be also awarded. And or any other relief which the Learned Court deems fit be also granted. An affidavit is attached”.

33. Thereafter, in the application which has been filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, the following prayer has been made by the plaintiffs: “It is therefore respectfully prayed that Ad-interim injunction may very kindly be granted in favour of the applicants and against the respondents by directing them to restore the occupation and possession of the suit property shown in rough site plan with red ink in Annexure "A-1" alongwith the goods/material of the applicants and tools of the mistris kept therein to the applicants. An affidavit is attached herewith.

34. A perusal of the same would show that by means of the interim injunction order, the plaintiffs are trying to obtain the final relief which has been claimed in the main suit which is certainly not permissible under the attending facts and circumstances of the case.

-14- 2026:HHC:32074

Certainly, final relief cannot be granted to the plaintiffs while deciding a miscellaneous application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

35. It has also come on record that the plaintiffs had taken another shop on rent from Smt. Bindu Gupta, and a copy of the rent deed has been placed on record, which has been referred to by the learned trial Court. The said fact demonstrates that the applicants/plaintiffs are occupying another shop in the vicinity of the area. Therefore, once the plaintiffs are running business in another shop and have also filed a suit for recovery of damages for adjudicating their claim, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to pass any interim order in favour of the plaintiffs.

36. The defendants have been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour, and the balance of convenience also lies in their favour. In case the injunction order is passed against the defendants, they shall certainly suffer huge and irreparable loss.

37. This Court is in agreement with the judgment/order as passed by the learned Courts below, whereby both Courts have concurrently held that since the issue as raised by the plaintiffs and agitated by the defendants raises highly disputed questions of fact, therefore, those are required to be determined by holding a trial, including leading evidence by the respective parties.

38. Therefore, at this stage, the relief of restoration of the shop cannot be granted to the plaintiffs as the onus to prove their case

-15- 2026:HHC:32074

lies upon the plaintiffs, and they shall be granted opportunity by the learned trial Court to plead and prove their case in accordance with law. However, at this stage, while adjudicating the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, the relief as sought by the plaintiffs is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

39. The power under Article 227 is limited to see that the Courts below function within the limits of their authority or jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, over the last 50 years, it has consistently been observed that the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with findings of fact or by setting aside the judgments of the courts below on merits.

40. Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010, titled State of Haryana & others vs. Manoj Kumar, decided on 09.03.2010 has held as follow: - “23. More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench of this court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction.

24. This court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath's case in a subsequent judgment in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu AIR 1963 SC 1895. The court observed that jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means

-16- 2026:HHC:32074

appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority.

25. This court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566. The court observed as under:- "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. for this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."

26. This court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576. The court again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.

27. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again

-17- 2026:HHC:32074

abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it.

28. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi & Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 this court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits.

29. This court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit.”

41. To the similar extent, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022, titled as Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, decided on 13.05.2022 has held as follows: - “14. In view of the above, in the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58 (1) (a) (iii) of the 2019 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised. 14.1 The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of

-18- 2026:HHC:32074

Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, which has been consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC Online SC 29). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigor of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

42. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment/order as passed by learned Courts below as the same have been rightly determined and adjudicated the point in controversy and the same does not call for any interference.

43. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

44. Any observation made hereinabove is meant only for adjudication of the present proceedings and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge 3rd August, 2026 (vt)

-19- 2026:HHC:32074

(vt)