(1.) The plaintiffs instituted, a, suit bearing Civil Suit No. 17/19 of 2012, before the learned trial Judge concerned, seeking therethrough, hence, rendition, of, a declaratory decree, besides rendition, of, a decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction, vis-a-vis, the, suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, (i) and, the anvil, of, the afore espoused declaration, is, embodied in theirs (a) being owner through adverse possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, and, (b) revenue entries, prepared subsequent to the year 1950, reflecting the suit land, becoming initially vested in the Panchayat, and, thereafter, in, the State of Himachal Pradesh, and, whereafter, it became allotted to the defendants, being declared null and void. The afore suit became contested by the defendants. However, during, the pendency of the afore civil suit, before the learned trial Court, an application, cast, under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1, and, 2 CPC, became instituted therebefore rather by the plaintiffs, seeking therethrough pronouncement, of, relief, of, ad-interim injunction, vis-a-vis, suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendants, (c) and, upon the afore application, an affirmative order become recorded, by the learned trial Court, and, whereafter, the learned trial Judge hence directed the contesting litigants to maintain status quo, qua, the nature, and, possession of the suit khasra numbers, till a decision, upon, the afore civil suit, becoming made.
(2.) The aggrieved defendants constituted therefrom, an appeal, before the learned first Appellate Court, and, upon the apposite Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the learned trial Judge, after dismissing the application, filed therebefore, by, the plaintiffs, under Order 42 Rule 27 CPC, seeking therethrough, leave of the Court, to adduce into evidence, the report of the Halka Patwari, as well as, the report of Halka Kanungo, hence proceeded to allow the defendants appeal, and, obviously, set aside the order recorded, on 11.3.2013, hence by the learned trial Judge, upon, CMA No. 46/6 of 2012.
(3.) The plaintiffs, becoming aggrieved therefrom hence institute thereagainst the instant petition hence before this Court. The plaintiffs' endeavor would beget success, only upon, at this stage, this Court becoming prima facie satisfied, in as much as, (i) qua, a, prima facie case existing, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, (ii) the balance of convenience being loaded qua them, (iii) , and, irreparable loss, becoming encumbered, upon, the defendants, upon, the espoused relief becoming declined to them. Necessarily hence this Court, for, construing, vis-a-vis, the apposite triplicate afore tests becoming satisfied, rather, is, enjoined to allude, to, the apt therewith documentary evidence, rather making the afore echoings. Even though, the documentary evidence, as, exists on, the, record, of, the extant lis, reflects, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs' submission, vis-a-vis, the revenue entries, prior, to, the year 1950, not clearly reflecting, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, becoming validly vestable in the panchayat, rather, not garnering any succour therefrom (a) and, besides, whereafter, the suit khasra numbers, become allotted to the defendants. (b) However, yet, the presumption of truth, as, enjoyed by the afore reflections, as cast, in the afore revenue documents, was, rather attempted to beget scuttlings, vis-a-vis, their vigor, hence by the plaintiffs, through theirs', making dependences, upon, the, drawing, of, proceeding, against them, under Section 163, of, the H.P. Land Revenue Act, and, also, upon, the, factum, of, the afore proceedings becoming dropped, and, wherefrom, they imperatively, strive, to, garner, a, concomitant conclusion, vis-a-vis, (c) the plaintiffs holding rather possession of the suit land, (d) theirs succeeding, in their, projection vis-a-vis, theirs acquiring title, through adverse possession, qua, the, suit khasra numbers.