CHANCHAL KUMAR Vs. PREM PARKASH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 31.10.2017, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 01/2017 having been filed by the defendants, whereby order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu in CMA No. 239-vi/2014 came to be reversed, petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter, 'plaintiff') has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to restore the order passed by trial court, after setting aside the judgment dated 31.10.2017, as referred to herein above.

(2.) Facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondents-defendants (hereinafter, 'defendants') from interfering in the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 482 and 483 situate in Phati and Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, praying therein for interim relief restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from raising construction over the suit land, till the final disposal of the suit. Learned trial Court, vide order dated 10.11.2016, directed both the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, possession and construction over land in Khata Khatauni No. 222/264 Khasra No. 483 and from encroaching over existing path over Khata Khatauni No. 200/233 Khasra No. 482, situate in Phati and Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by learned trial Court, defendants preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, in the court of learned District Judge, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 31.10.2017, whereby learned District Judge, while setting aside order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), vacated the status quo order passed by the learned trial Court. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to restore order dated 10.11.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge, after setting aside impugned judgment dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this court is not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the plaintiff that the learned District Judge, while upsetting status quo order dated 10.11.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties in its right perspective, rather, this court finds that the plaintiff concealed material facts with regard to pendency of earlier suit, while filing suit at hand, which admittedly came to be dismissed during the pendency of the present suit.