C.R. No.5076 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.5076 of 2007 Date of Decision : 8.7.2008 Ram Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. Gram Panchayat, Malikpur ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Dhull, Advocate for the respondent. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this revision is to set aside the order dated 23.7.2007, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, declined grant of police help to protect the petitioner's possession. The petitioner filed Civil Suit No.65 of 2005, claiming to be a proprietor in possession of land measuring 40 K 15 M. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 23.5.2006, restrained the respondent-Gram Panchayat from interfering in the petitioner's possession, except in due course of law. An appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat against the said order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal on 1.2.2007. An auction for the year 2007-08 was announced. The petitioner apprehending interference in his possession, filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter an application praying for grant of police help to protect his possession. The Gram Panchayat appeared before the trial Court and submitted that as the petitioner was not C.R. No.5076 of 2007 2 in possession, there was no question of the Gram Panchayat dispossessing him. On the basis of the aforementioned assertions, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, dismissed the application for grant of police help. Counsel for the petitioner states that the learned trial Court was bound in view of the order of interim injunction, to protect the petitioner's possession and therefore, should have granted police help. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, submits that the Gram Panchayat would not dispossess the petitioner illegally but would only do so, in accordance with the procedure established by law. It is submitted that the petitioner should have approached the Assistant Collector for any relief, with respect to the auction. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In view of the statement made by counsel for the Gram Panchayat that the Gram Panchayat would not interfere in the petitioner's possession, except in due course of law, the petitioner's prayer for grant of protection by way of police help has been rendered infructuous and the revision is disposed of as such. 8.7.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE