TULA RAM JAIN vs ONKAR CHAND

Court
High Court of Himachal Pradesh

1 2026:HHC:25426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
RSA   No. :  615 of 2009
    .
Reserved  on     :    24 06.2026
  
Decided on      :   30.06.2026
      
Uploaded on   :   30.06.2026
Tula Ram Jain       …Appellant
 
Versus
Onkar Chand and Another              …..Respondents
Coram :
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.       
1   
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
____________________________________________________________
For the Appellant      :  Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. 
For the Respondents      : None for respondent No.1.
Mr.   H.S.   Rawat,   Additional
Advocate   General   with   Mr.   Rohit
Sharma   and   Ms.   Avni   Kochhar
Mehta, Deputy Advocates General,
for respondent No.2.
__________________________________________________________
  Virender Singh,   Judge
Appellant­Tula Ram Jain has filed the present
appeal,   under   Section   100   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), against the judgment and
decree dated 30.09.2009, passed by the learned District Judge
(Forest), Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned
First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal No.40­S/13 of 2008/06,
titled as Tula Ram Jain versus Onkar Chand & Another.  
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 15:01:50 :::CIS

2 2026:HHC:25426
2. By   way   of   judgment   and   decree   dated
High Court of H.P.
30.09.2009, the learned First Appellate Court has   dismissed
the appeal preferred by appellant Tula Ram Jain against the
judgment and decree dated 31.07.2006, passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla (hereinafter
referred to as the learned trial Court’), in Civil Suit No.107/1 of
1999, titled as Tula Ram Jain versus Onkar Chand & Another,
by granting the following relief:­
“Thus,   in   view   of   the   above   discussion   the
plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour
for the relief of the injunction.   The trial Court
has  wrongly  decreed  the  suit  partly granting
permanent   prohibitory   injunction.     Therefore,
appeal, as well as the suit of the plaintiff are
dismissed with costs throughout.   The decree
sheet be prepared accordingly.   The record of
the trial Court along with copy of this judgment
be sent back forthwith and the file of this Court
be consigned to the record room.”
3. By   way   of   judgment   and   decree   dated
31.07.2006, the learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit,
by granting the following relief:­
“   In   view   of   my   abovesaid   discussion   and
findings,   the   suit   succeeds   in   part   and
accordingly decreed partly with costs.  A decree
of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant
No./1­restraining him from causing any kind of
interference in the suit land and set backs area
and   wall   comprising   in   Khata   Khatoni
No.30/35,   Khasra   No.696.   679/351/1
measuring   4   biswas   situated   at   Mohal
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 15:01:50 :::CIS

3 2026:HHC:25426
Chakdyal Harbast No.352, Tehsil and District
Shimla,   H.P.     However,   suit   qua   mandatory
injunction   fails.     Decree   sheet   be   prepared
accordingly and file after needful be consigned
to the records.”
High Court of H.P.
 
4.   For   the   sake   of   convenience,   parties   to   the
present appeal, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner,
in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.
5.  Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present
appeal, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as
under:­
5.1. Plaintiff   Tula   Ram   Jain   has   filed   a   suit   for
Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, against the defendants on the
ground   that   he   is   owner­in­possession   of   single   storeyed
building,   constructed   over   the   land   bearing   Khata   Khatauni
No.30/35, Khasra No.696/ 679/351/1, as per the  Tatima  of the
spot, measuring 4 biswas, including the vacant land/set backs,
left   by   the   plaintiff,   situated   at   Mohal   Chhakdayal,   Hadbast
No.353, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to
as the suit land).
5.2. The plaintiff, while constructing the building,
left the proper set backs, as per the interim development plan
(IDP)   of   Shimla,   prescribed   by   defendant   No.2,   and   a   ‘No
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 15:01:50 :::CIS

4 2026:HHC:25426
Objection   Certificate’   has   also   been   issued   in   favour   of   the
High Court of H.P.
plaintiff, on 24.01.1996.  
5.3. It   is   the   further   case   of   the   plaintiff   that
adjoining   to   the   suit   land,   defendant   No.1,   has   started
construction work, over the plot, consisting of Khasra No.696/
679/351/2/1, as per   Tatima   of the spot. However, defendant
No.1, while constructing the building, did not leave proper set
backs, as per the norms of the IDP and further encroached upon
the suit land and set backs left by the plaintiff, by extending
projection of lentil and beams over the land of the plaintiff.  This
has been done by defendant No.1, despite request made by the
plaintiff.
5.4. On the basis of the above stand, the plaintiff
has   sought   the   decree   of   Permanent   Prohibitory   Injunction,
restraining the defendant from damaging and encroaching upon
the suit land and also sought a decree for mandatory injunction
thereby directing the defendant to remove the encroachment or
projections made over the suit land/set backs of the plaintiff
and to provide proper set back, as per the provisions of the
Town and Country Planning Act.
6. When,   put   to   notice,   the   suit   has   been
contested by defendant No.2.  Defendant No.1, despite repeated
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 15:01:50 :::CIS

5 2026:HHC:25426
opportunities granted to file the written statement,   could not
High Court of H.P.
file the same.  As such, his defence was ordered to be struck off,
by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.08.2001.
6.1. Defendant No.2, has filed its written statement
by   taking   preliminary   objections   that   the   suit   is   not
maintainable; the suit is bad for non joinder of parties; and no
notice,   under   Section   80   CPC,   has   been   served   upon   the
defendant   by   the   plaintiff,   as   such,   the   suit   is   liable   to   be
dismissed, on this score.  
6.2. On merits, the factual position, as asserted, in
the plaint, has been contested, by pleading that the plaintiff has
not carried out the construction work after obtaining permission
from the defendant department. Defendant No.1, has started
construction work on the land bearing Khasra No.679/851/2/1,
for   which,   sanction   was   accorded,   by   the   department,   on
15.10.1998.  
6.3. It   is   the   further   case   of   defendant   No.2   that
during investigation, when it was found that defendant No.1 has
raised projections of RCC Slab over the set backs,  notice, under
Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, was issued,
however,  the  encroachment  could  not   be  ascertained,  in  the
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 15:01:50 :::CIS

6 2026:HHC:25426
absence of demarcation report, which is to be provided, by the
High Court of H.P.
revenue authorities.
6.4. According to defendant No.2, action has been
taken   for   the   chhajja/projection   on   the   set   backs   and   ‘No
Objection Certificate’ for water connection has also not been
issued to defendant No.1, for encroachment on set backs, being
part of the suit land.
6.5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to dismiss the suit.
7. Plaintiff   has   filed   replication,   denying   the
preliminary   submissions,   as   well   as,   contents   of   the   written
statement, by virtue of which, the suit has been contested and
reasserted that of the plaint.
8. From   the   pleadings   of   the   parties,   following
issues were framed, by the learned trial Court, vide order dated
27.05.2004: 
1) Whether   the   defendant   No.1   has   encroached
upon the land of the plaintiff as alleged and has
also   not   left   set   back   if   so   to   what   effect?
OPP
2)  Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
Permanent   Prohibitory   Injunction   and   in   the
alternative of Mandatory Injunction as prayed
for? OPD
3)  Whether   the   suit   is   not   maintainable   in   the
present form?           OPD
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 15:01:50 :::CIS

7 2026:HHC:25426
  
4) Whether   the   suit   is   bad   for   non   joinder   of
High Court of H.P.
necessary parties as alleged? OPD
5) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under
Section 80 of CPC as alleged?   OPD
 
6) Relief.
9. Thereafter,   parties   to   the   lis   were   directed   to
adduce evidence.
10. After closure of the evidence, the learned trial
Court, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, has partly
decreed the suit, as referred to above.
11.  Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and
decree, the plaintiff has preferred the appeal, under Section 96
of   the   CPC,   before   the   learned   First   Appellate   Court.       The
learned First Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, has
also dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
12. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and
decree, the present appeal has been preferred, before this Court
which   has   been   admitted   on   19.05.2011,   on   the   following
substantial questions of law:­
1. Whether the learned lower appellate court has
erred   in   reversing   the   findings   and   relief   of
permanent probability injunction in the appeal
of the appellant without there being any cross­
appeal   or   cross­objections   on   the   part   of
respondent No.1?
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 15:01:50 :::CIS

8 2026:HHC:25426
2. Whether the learned lower appellate court has
erred in not granting mandatory injunction to
the appellant?
High Court of H.P.
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW No.1
13. Admittedly, in the present case, defendants have
not   preferred   the   appeal,   against   the   judgment   and   decree,
passed by the learned trial Court on 31.07.2006, by virtue of
which, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed, by granting
the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, against defendant
No.1, restraining him from causing any kind of interference in
the suit land and the set back area.  
14. Interestingly, the learned First Appellate Court,
while   dismissing   the   appeal,   has   also   set   aside   the   relief   of
permanent prohibitory injunction, which has been granted to
the plaintiff, by the learned trial Court.   The relief, which has
not been assailed by defendant No.1, attains finality and in the
absence of any appeal/cross­objection, the said relief, cannot be
interfered with, by the learned First Appellate Court.
15. No   doubt,   the   relief   of   mandatory   injunction
has not been granted to the plaintiff, by the learned trial Court,
for which, he has filed the appeal, under Section 96 of the CPC,
before the learned First Appellate Court and the learned First
Appellate Court was in its full competence to decide the said
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 15:01:50 :::CIS

9 2026:HHC:25426
appeal, on the basis of the material available before it.  However,
High Court of H.P.
the learned First Appellate Court has no power to dismiss the
suit, by setting aside the relief, which has been granted to him
by the learned trial Court, which has not even been assailed by
defendant No.1,  who  could  be  the  best  person  to  assail  the
same, being aggrieved person.
16. The judgment and decree passed by the learned
trial Court, by virtue of which, the said relief has been granted
to   the   plaintiff,   has   not   been   assailed,   by   either   of   the
defendants, nor, have they bothered to file the cross­objections,
before the learned First Appellate Court.  By filing first appeal,
the plaintiff has assailed the judgment of learned trial Court
only   to   the   extent   that   the   mandatory   injunction   has   been
declined to him.  In the absence of appeal/cross appeal, learned
First   Appellate   Court   was   not   competent   to   tinker   with   the
judgment and decree of learned trial Court, by virtue of which,
the relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction was granted to the
plaintiff and which has attained finality, being not challenged by
the aggrieved party i.e. defendants.
17. In view of the above discussion, the substantial
question of law No.1, is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 15:01:50 :::CIS

10
2026:HHC:25426
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW NO.2:
High Court of H.P.
18. As per the arguments of the learned counsel for
the   appellant/plaintiff,   the   learned   trial   Court   has   wrongly
declined  the   relief   of  mandatory  injunction  to  him,  whereas,
according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
plaintiff, it has been proved on record that defendant No.1 has
encroached upon the set backs, left by the plaintiff.
19. The learned trial Court has declined the said
relief   on   the   ground   that   the   plaintiff   has   not   offered   any
explanation for not getting the demarcation of the suit land, as,
in order to grant the mandatory injunction, evidence should be
there   to   demonstrate   as   to     how   much   area   has   been
encroached upon, by defendant No.1.   In the absence of any
material   on   record,   the   relief   of   mandatory   injunction,   has
rightly   been   declined,   by   the   learned   trial   Court.     The
substantial question of law No.2, is answered accordingly.
CONCLUSION
20. In view of the above discussion,  the judgment
and   decree   passed   by   the   learned   First   Appellate   Court,   by
virtue   of   which,   the   suit   of   the   plaintiff   was   ordered   to   be
dismissed, does not sustain, in the judicial scrutiny, by this
Court.  Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed; the judgment
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 15:01:50 :::CIS

11
2026:HHC:25426
and decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court is set
High Court of H.P.
aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial
Court   is   revived   and   upheld.     Decree   sheet   be   prepared
accordingly.
21.  Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed
of.
Record be sent back.
(Virender Singh)
              Judge
June 30, 2026 (ps)
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2026 15:01:50 :::CIS