JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Appellant has approached this Court against judgment and decree dated 15.1.2020, passed in Civil Appeal No. 52-13/2017, titled as Krishan Dass and others Vs. Rama Nand and others by Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby judgment and decree dated 7.10.2017, passed in Civil Suit No. 121-1 of 2017/12, titled as Rama Nand Vs. Krishan Dass and others by Civil Judge Court No. 3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. has been reversed and suit preferred by respondent No. 1 Rama Nand seeking permanent prohibitory injunction by restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from his share from the suit land, has been dismissed. 2. Appellant Rama Nand is plaintiff, whereas respondents No. 1 to 3 and performa respondent No. 4 are defendants in the suit and they shall, herein after for convenience, be referred as per their status in the Civil Suit. 3. Plaintiff had preferred a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. Defendant No. 2 Ghan Shyam did not contest the suit and was proceeded against ex parte, whereas other defendants had contested the suit, who are respondents herein. 4. Civil Judge (Trial Court) decreed the suit of plaintiff by passing a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction by restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from his share and possession in the suit land by demolishing the construction already made by obstructing the path, air, light to the existing house of the plaintiff or in any manner personally or through agents, servants and family members etc. till the suit land is not finally partitioned. 5. Appeal preferred by contesting defendants has been allowed by Additional District Judge by passing impugned judgment and decree. 6. Undisputedly suit land was in joint ownership and possession of parties and partition proceedings were concluded by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jhandutta on 22.2.2011 and appeal filed by the plaintiff against order passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade was dismissed by Collector Sub Division, Ghumarwin vide order dated 6.1.2012. Order dated 6.1.2012 has been placed on record Ex. D1. Thereafter, possession was delivered to the parties on the spot as per land allotted on the basis of partition and entry in this regard was recorded in the roznamcha dated 12.11.2014, maintained by Patwari, copy whereof has been placed on record as Ex. D2. 7. Order dated 6.1.2012 has been placed on record Ex. D1. Thereafter, possession was delivered to the parties on the spot as per land allotted on the basis of partition and entry in this regard was recorded in the roznamcha dated 12.11.2014, maintained by Patwari, copy whereof has been placed on record as Ex. D2. 7. Revenue appeal preferred by plaintiff before Sub Divisional Collector was dismissed vide order dated 6.1.2012. The said order has been assailed by plaintiff, as stated in the plaint before Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. After that present suit has been filed on 18.4.2012 claiming that defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the land occupied by him in the joint land, whereas partition proceedings have not attained finality. Copy of roznamcha dated 12.11.2014 indicates that no stay order was granted by the Divisional Commissioner against the order dated 6.1.2012 (Ex. D1) passed by Sub Divisional Collector dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the order dated 22.2.2011 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jhandutta in partition proceedings between the parties and it appears that instead of approaching the higher Revenue Court for obtaining stay order, realizing that on merit there was no possibility of grant of stay by revenue authorities, plaintiff, instead of filing appropriate application/appeal/ revision seeking stay of order passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jhandutta and Sub Divisional Collector, has approached the Civil Suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. 8. Prayer in the plaint reflects that plaintiff did not file suit for permanent prohibitory injunction till the completion of proceedings/litigations related to partition proceedings pending before the Revenue Courts, but for permanent prohibitory injunction forever. Claim of the plaintiff in the plaint is that defendants have been allotted portion of land which is in possession of plaintiff, in connivance with the field revenue staff in absence of plaintiff and the said portion of the land is required to be allotted to plaintiff keeping in view his convenience and bartan of the share holders and in absence of that, purpose of such partition is not sustainable in the eye of law and stating so, suit has been preferred for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. 9. Defendants have placed on record copy of order passed by Sub Divisional Collector as Ex. 9. Defendants have placed on record copy of order passed by Sub Divisional Collector as Ex. D1, wherein it has been recorded that on request of plaintiff and defendants spot was visited by him on 1.12.2011 in presence of parties and it was found by him that stairs are bone of contention between the parties, which were being used by defendants as their main path leading to their house, whereas plaintiff had separate entrance on other side to his house. During his spot visit, parties were directed, as agreed by them, to resolve the matter amicably and for that purpose time was granted to the parties, as prayed by them. Ultimately, no amicable settlement could arrive between the parties and appeal preferred by plaintiff was dismissed by Sub Divisional Collector with observation that in case land is allotted to the plaintiff as per his demand, there would be no path left to the house of defendants and they would have to construct a new path, whereas on giving possession of the stairs to defendants which were in their possession, no loss would be caused to the plaintiff and further that plaintiff was advised to keep this path in joint ownership of parties, but he did not agree, whereas he was having a separate entrance to his house and with aforesaid observation it was concluded by the Sub Divisional Collector that for allowing the appeal filed by plaintiff grave injustice would be done to the defendants and the appeal was dismissed. The said order was assailed by the plaintiff before the Divisional Commissioner. Neither party has placed on record outcome of those proceedings or adjudication by Divisional Commissioner. However, copy of mutation dated 26.11.2014 EX D2 alongwith copy of roznamcha of Patwari dated 12.11.2014 has been placed on record, whereby partition of land, as ordered by Assistant Collector 1st Grade and affirmed by Sub Divisional Collector has been implemented by handing over the possession of respective portion to the parties and has been incorporated in the revenue papers also. 10. Plaintiff has also produced compromise on record in his evidence, but without any pleadings related thereto in the plaint or seeking any relief on the basis of that. The compromise is dated 29.11.2000, whereas thereafter partition proceedings have been concluded by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and regular partition has taken place. 10. Plaintiff has also produced compromise on record in his evidence, but without any pleadings related thereto in the plaint or seeking any relief on the basis of that. The compromise is dated 29.11.2000, whereas thereafter partition proceedings have been concluded by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and regular partition has taken place. It is claim of the plaintiff that partition proceedings have not attained finality, but no material in this regard has been placed on record. 11. In any case, orders passed in partition proceedings are to be adjudicated by the Revenue Courts and interim order for staying the implementation thereof is to be passed by the higher Revenue Court and when higher Revenue Court has been approached by plaintiff he should have agitated for interim stay in the same Court or for refusal thereof by the said Court in next higher Court in the hierarchy in accordance with law, but definitely Civil Suit for aborting the result of partition proceedings completed by the competent revenue authorities under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, is not maintainable in present form, particularly for the material placed on record. Therefore, Additional District Judge has committed no mistake of law by holding that suit was not maintainable, and accordingly, allowed the appeal preferred by the contesting defendants. 12. On perusal of material placed on record and judgments and decrees passed by Courts below, it is apparent that Additional District Judge has considered the entire material on record in right perspective and there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in findings returned by him as there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law, in present matter, which is required to be determined in this appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, present appeal is dismissed. Pending applications are also disposed of in aforesaid terms.