IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.665 of 2023

Reserved on: 14.05.2026

Date of Decision: 27

th

May, 2026.

Dhani Ram (deceased) through LRs & others .....Petitioners

Versus

Ram Krishan & others ...Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

The present petition has been preferred against the

impugned judgment dated 22.09.2023, passed by the learned

Additional District Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. in CIS

Registration No. 20 of 2023, titled Ram Krishan and others vs.

Dhani Ram & others, whereby appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r)

CPC filed by the present respondents was allowed and the Order

dated 25.04.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2,

Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. was set aside, whereby the application

filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC

was allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/petitioners

filed a suit under Sections 36, 38, and 39 of the Specific Relief Act,

1963, seeking a declaration to the following effect:

1

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

2

(a) that plaintiff no. 1 is owner to the extent of 4/12 (1/3)

share & defendants 1 to 3 are owner of 8/12 in land

bearing khata 242, khatoni 297, khasra 1393 area 00-

24-35 hectares, jamabandi 2013-2014, mohal Mat

umran, Sub Tehsil Pragpur, Tehsil Dehra, Distt. Kangra

(HP) and revenue entries to the contrary are wrong,

illegal, unauthorized, void-ab-initio & mutation no. 169

dated 16-07-1994 conferring proprietary rights upon Sh.

Rulia i.e. predecessor - in - interest of defendant no 1 to

3 granting one half ownership right/ share upon him &

now continuing in favour of his successors (defendants

1 to 3) are also wrong illegal and has no effect upon the

1/3rd share of plaintiff no. 1 i.e Dhani Ram. and

defendants 1 to 3 have no right to get the share

separated from the revenue authorities on the basis of

wrong entries/shares alongwith decree for perpetual

injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from changing

the nature/user of suit land and making any alienation or

create any charge/or/encumbrance of any kind upon

said land till title is cleared by the court.

(b) that plaintiff no. 1 has 1/3rd share and plaintiff 2 and

3 have 1/3rd share in land bearing khata 241, khatoni

296, khasra 1382, 1385, 1389, 1395, kita 4 area 00-23-

86 hectares, jamabandi 2013-2014, mahaal Mat

Umraan, Sub Tehsil Pragpur, Tehsil Dehra, Distt.

3

Kangra (HP) and revenue entries to the contrary are

wrong illegal & mutation 169 dated 16-07-1994

conferring proprietary rights qua ½ share upon Sh. Rulia

s/o Bhagtu i.e. predecessor - in - interest of defendants

1 to 3 are wrong illegal, unauthorized and all further

entries in favour of defendants 1 to 3 are also wrong

illegal and have no basis and defendants 1 to 3 have no

rights to get the share separated from the revenue

authorities on the basis of wrong entries/shares

alongwith decree for perpetual injunction restraining

defendants 1 to 3 from changing the nature/user of suit

land and making any alienation or create any

charge/or/encumbrance of any kind upon said land till

title is cleared by the court.

(c) that plaintiffs are tenant-at-will to the extent of 2/3rd

share (plaintiff 1 =1/3rdShare) + (plaintiffs 2 &3 = 1/3

share) under defendant 1 to 9 and owner to the extent

of 124/432 (62/216) share and defendants 1 to 3 are

tenant at will to the extent of 1/3rd share under

defendant 4 to 9 and owner to the extent of 62/432

share over land bearing khata 243, khatoni 298, khasra

1383, 1387, 1392, 1384, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1394, 1386

area 00-88-14 hectares, and revenue entries to the

contrary are also wrong illegal, void ab-initio and have

4

no basis & confer no right upon defendants beyond their

share.

(d) that land bearing Khasra No. 242, Khatauni No. 297,

Khasra No. 1393, measuring 00-24-35 hectares, is

wrongly recorded in the ownership of plaintiff No. 1,

Dhani Ram, to the extent of 3/12 share, and defendants

No. 1 to 3 as owners to the extent of 9/12 share. Plaintiff

No. 1 and Sh. Khushi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of

plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, are also wrongly recorded as

owners to the extent of 1/2 share, and defendants No. 1

to 3 are wrongly recorded as owners to the extent of 1/2

share in Khasra Nos. 1382, 1385, 1389, and 1395.

3. Previously, the land referred to as the suit land was part

and parcel of old Khasra No. 873, measuring 37 kanals and 6

marlas. While preparing the Jamabandi for the year 1971-72, the

revenue officials, without any order of the Court, wrongly recorded

Khushi Ram and Dhani Ram as tenants to the extent of 1/2 share

and Rulia Ram as tenant to the extent of 1/2 share by tampering

with the revenue record, which was done by Rulia Ram,

predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 3, in collusion with

the revenue authorities. The said change is wrong, illegal,

unauthorized, and without any justification. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants No.1 to 3 filed a written statement raising

various preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, locus

standi, estoppel, jurisdiction, and the bar under Order 2 Rule 2

5

CPC. It was specifically pleaded by the defendants that the revenue

entries qua the shares of defendants No.1 to 3 are correctly

recorded. It was further averred that plaintiff Dhani Ram had earlier

filed Civil Suit No.92/2008 before the Court of learned Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Dehra, qua Khasra No.1393, which was

dismissed on 01.12.2010. In the said suit, the plaintiff had the

opportunity to contest the shares as recorded in the revenue record;

however, he failed to do so. Therefore, the present suit is barred by

the principles of res judicata and estoppel. It was further stated that

the shares reflected in the revenue record have been rightly

depicted and do not call for any interference.

5. As per the defendants, Khasra No.1393 was partitioned by

the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Rakkar, on 29.11.2013, and the

final order of partition was passed on 23.02.2015. Khasra No.1393

was allotted to the defendants in the said partition proceedings.

Earlier, Khushi Ram, son of Gulabu and predecessor-in-interest of

plaintiffs No.2 and 3, had transferred his entire share in Khasra

No.1393 to defendants No.1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dated

06.02.2008. Therefore, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 have no locus standi or

right to file the present suit. It has further been stated that

possession of Khasra No.1393/1 was delivered to the defendants

on 14.06.2018 pursuant to the order of the Assistant Collector,

Rakkar, at the spot.

6. It was further submitted that the partition has rightly been

effected as per the shares recorded in the revenue records. The

6

defendants are in possession of Khasra No.1393/1, measuring

0.18.25 hectares, where the plaintiffs, on the basis of the present

civil suit, are interfering. Accordingly, the defendants have filed the

counterclaim.

7. It was specifically stated that the plaintiffs were aware of

the entries prevailing in the revenue record and had earlier filed a

civil suit, sold their share, and were present at the time of

attestation and mutation of the proprietary rights. The plaintiffs were

also present at the time of settlement and consolidation

proceedings, therefore, the suit is hopelessly time-barred and

without any cause of action.

8. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to

restrain the defendants from forcefully raising construction and

changing nature of the suit land during the pendency of the suit.

9. The said application was duly contested by the non-

defendants, and it was stated that the application had been filed

without any basis and deserved to be rejected.

10. The learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 25.04.2023,

allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners and directed

the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature, possession, and

alienation of the suit land during the pendency of the suit.

11. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants Ram Krishan and

others preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule

1 read with Section 151 CPC before the Court of learned Additional

7

District Judge, Dehra on 09.06.2023. The learned First Appellate

Court, vide its judgment dated 02.09.2023, allowed the appeal filed

by the defendants and consequently dismissed the application filed

by the plaintiffs for the grant of injunction.

12. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by

the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed the

instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

13. It is contended by Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Senior

Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate, that the

impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is

wrong and erroneous and, therefore, the same is liable to be

quashed and set aside. He further submits that the learned Trial

Court had rightly passed the order directing the parties to maintain

status quo, and the said order has been wrongly interfered with in

the first appeal. He further submits that, upon acceptance of the

present petition, the impugned judgment passed by the learned

First Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside, and

the order passed by the learned Trial Court is required to be

restored.

14. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, learned counsel

for the respondents, has defended the impugned judgment. He

submits that the learned First Appellate Court has rightly

appreciated the point in controversy by allowing the appeal filed by

the present respondents/defendants and dismissing the application

filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. He has vehemently argued that while

8

invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

this Court will not sit as an appellate court and will not re-weigh or

re-appreciate the material which has already been considered by

the courts below.

15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the case file.

16. The plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit before the learned trial

Court by challenging the revenue records and submitting that the

shares of the parties have been wrongly incorporated in the

revenue records.

17. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land comprised in

Khata No.242, Khatauni No.297, Khasra No.1393 is wrongly

recorded in the ownership of plaintiff No.1, Dhani Ram, to the extent

of 3/12 share, and respondents No.1 to 3 as owners to the extent of

9/12 share. It is further the case of the plaintiff that applicant No.1

and Khushi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of applicants No.2 and 3,

are wrongly recorded as owners to the extent of ½ share, and the

respondents No.1 to 3 are also wrongly recorded as owners to the

extent of ½ share in Khata No.241, Khatauni No.296, and Khasra

Nos.1382, 1385, 1389, and 1395, Kitta 4, measuring 00-23-86

hectares, situated at Mohal Mat Umraan, Sub Tehsil Pragpur,

Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P.

18. Further, it has been alleged that applicant No.1, Dhani

Ram, and Khushi Ram are recorded as owners to the extent of

31/144 share, and respondents No.1 to 3 are recorded as owners to

9

the extent of 31/144 share, and that the applicants and respondents

No.1 to 3 are recorded as tenants-at-will to the extent of ½ share

over Khasra Nos.1383, 1387, 1392, 1384, 1388, 1390, 1394, and

1386. Previously, the land referred to was part and parcel of old

Khasra No.873, measuring 37 kanals 6 marlas, in which Khushi

Ram, Dhani Ram, and Rulia were recorded as tenants-at-will to the

extent of 1/3rd share each on payment of Galla Batai Tihara (1/3rd

share), under which terms the said tenants were inducted as

tenants by the then owners.

19. It is further the case of the plaintiff that during settlement

operations, some of the land of the Khata was transferred in the

name of the State of Himachal Pradesh vide Mutation No.22 dated

14.12.1982. It is further the case of the plaintiff that after

consolidation, a wrong entry of tenancy continued as was in the

earlier settlement, but the possession of the plaintiff remained at the

spot.

20. The respondents No.1 to 3, on the basis of wrong entries, filed

two partition cases qua Khasra No.1393, and in the said partition

proceedings the applicants were not properly served as per law, nor

was the legal procedure followed by the Revenue Court. Therefore,

the suit for declaration has been filed by the plaintiff.

21. The plea of the plaintiff has been categorically and specifically

denied by the defendants by stating that the revenue entries qua

the shares of defendants No.1 to 3 are correctly recorded. It has

been stated that plaintiff Dhani Ram had filed Civil Suit No.92/2008

10

before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehra,

District Kangra, H.P., qua Khasra No.1393. The said suit was

dismissed on 01.12.2010, and the plaintiff had the opportunity to

contest the shares recorded in the revenue records. The plaintiff

failed to contest the shares in those proceedings; therefore, the

present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata and estoppel.

22. It is the case of the defendants that the revenue records,

right from 1971–72 till date, are correct and reflect the correct

position on the spot. Khasra No.1393 was partitioned by the

Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Rakkar, on 29.11.2013, and the

order of partition was passed on 23.02.2015.

23. It is the case of the defendants that Khasra No.1393/1 has

been allotted in partition to the defendants. Earlier, Khushi Ram,

son of Gulabu and predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No.2 and 3,

had transferred his entire share in Khasra No.1393 to defendants

No.1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dated 06.02.2008. Therefore,

plaintiffs No.2 and 3 have no locus standi or right to file the present

suit.

24. It has further been stated that possession of Khasra

No.1393/1 was given to the defendants on 14.06.2008 by the order

of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Rakkar, at the spot. The

learned Trial Court did not appreciate the point in controversy and

has wrongly passed the order directing the parties to maintain

status quo. Primarily, the dispute pertains to the correction of

11

revenue records. Since 1970, the revenue record has been in

existence.

25. The plaintiff, in the earlier civil suit filed qua Khasra

No.1393, could have taken all these grounds. The earlier suit was

dismissed on 01.12.2010, and now, in order to prejudice the rights

of the defendants and to frustrate the partition order passed on

23.02.2015, the present suit has been filed. There are long-standing

entries in favour of the defendants. Admittedly, whether the revenue

entries in question are correct or incorrect has to be adjudicated by

the Court after hearing both parties and considering the evidence

led by them.

26. Merely, on account of the fact that challenge has been laid

to the revenue entries, will not give any right to the plaintiffs to file

the suit and seek an injunction. The revenue record shows that it is

the defendants, who have prima facie case in their favour. The

balance of convenience also lies in their favour. In case the

defendants are injuncted, in that event, they shall suffer huge and

irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated, in terms of

monetary gains. The partition order was passed by the Assistant

Collector, Ist Grade, Rakkar on 23.02.2015 and thereafter, the

possession has been handed over to the defendants on

14.06.2018. Once the predecessor-in-interest of Khushi Ram has

transferred his whole share qua Khasra No.1393 to defendants

No.1 and 2 vide registered Sale Deed dated 06.02.2008, the suit

filed by them, prima facie, is not maintainable. It has come in the

12

pleadings that after the partition, the suit land has been transferred

or handed over to the defendants, therefore, the injunction if any

passed against them shall be detrimental to their rights and interest.

In the garb of the correction of the revenue records, the defendants

cannot be prevented or injuncted in the present suit, more so, in

view of the dismissal of the earlier suit on 01.12.2010.

27. The plaintiff has failed to pass the tripartite test of prima

facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The

revenue record, prima facie, shows that the defendants have title

over the suit land. The balance of convenience also lies in their

favour. In the partition proceedings, the land has been allotted to

them and possession thereof has been handed over to the

defendants. In case they are injuncted, they shall suffer huge and

irreparable loss.

28. The First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated and

determined the point in controversy and rightly came to the

conclusion that the plaintiffs do not have a prima facie case in their

favour and has consequently dismissed the application under Order

39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Even otherwise, while invoking the

provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of

interference is very limited and narrow.

29. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its various decisions, has held

that the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means

appellate in nature for correcting errors in the decisions of

subordinate Courts or Tribunals, but is merely a power of

13

superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their

authority. It has been held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred

on the High Court 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 errors apparent on the face of the

record, much less errors of law.

30. The power under Article 227 is limited to seeing 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.

31. Hon’ ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010,

titled State of Haryana & others vs. Manoj Kumar, decided on

13.05.2022 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 appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the

decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a

14

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

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 re-

appreciating 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.

15

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.”

32. 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 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

rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India.”

33. The Court below have rightly determined the points in controversy

after taking into consideration the material placed on record. The First

16

Appellate Court has rightly decided the case in hand, and there is no

error, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the same.

34. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit,

deserves to be dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

shall also stand disposed of.

35. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made here-

in-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of

the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by

any observation made here- in-above, which are only for the purpose of

the instant petition. Records, if any, be sent back henceforth.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge

May 27

th

, 2026

(Nisha)