CR No.1342 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1342 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.09.2009 Iqbal Singh ...Petitioner Vs. Mridu Nagpal & Anr. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.C.Nagpal, Advocate, for the respondents. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 17.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar. CR No.1342 of 2009 2 The orders are attached as Annexure P.9 and P.10 with this revision petition. By way of impugned order Annexure P.9 application moved by the petitioner for expunging the application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for providing police help has been ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner had claimed this relief on the plea that the application under section 151 of the Code was, in fact, moved in a petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code and therefore, it could not be taken on record of the civil suit. Learned counsel for the partitioner did not press revision petition qua this order. Consequently order Annexure P.9 is upheld. By way of order Annexure P.10, application moved by the respondents for providing police help for enforcing the order dated 17.11.2008 was allowed. The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. The application was allowed and the petitioner herein was restrained from interfering in the possession of the respondents. Appeal against the said order is pending before the learned appellate court. The respondents thereafter moved a petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code by taking a stand therein that order dated 17.11.2008 was violated by the petitioner herein. The application was contested and is pending adjudication. On the similar allegations on which application under Order 39 Rules 2-A of the Code was moved the respondents filed application under section 151 of the Code seeking police help to enforce the injunction order. CR No.1342 of 2009 3 Police help has been granted by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Chauhan Vs. Harsh Bishnoi & Another 2007 (2) Civil Court Cases 001 (SC), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that when the parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the order passed by the court, the court by exercising inherent power can put back the parties in the same position as it stood prior to issuance of injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved party for due and proper implementation of orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law relied upon by the learned Civil Judge. It is equally well settled that police help cannot be granted on the asking. Respondents admittedly filed a petition under Order 39 Rules 2-A of the Code which is still pending. It is yet to be determined whether there was any violation of injunction order by the parties and in case of success the respondents can always granted necessary relief. The petitioner can even be sent to civil prison for violating the order of injunction. In the absence of any finding regarding violation of injunction order police help could not be granted on mere asking. Operative part of the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge reads as under:- “6. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. 7. It is admitted fact that on the basis of application of the applicant-plaintiff, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC vide order dated 17.11.2008, stay was granted in favour of the CR No.1342 of 2009 4 applicant restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute except indue course of law. So, this application under Section 151 CPC for providing the police help for the purpose of implementing the order is maintainable one. Keeping in view the application of the application supported with affidavit, the Court is satisfied that the applicant is not enjoying the possession of the plot in dispute, though the stay was granted on 17.11.2008. In the reply respondents have denied the ownership and possession o the applicant over the property in dispute. Incase, the police help is not provided for implementing the stay order already granted in favour of the applicant, the ends of justice would not be met, as the plaintiff-applicant would be unable to enjoy the property in dispute as per her desires, despite the stay granted. In this regard, draw support to my observation from the law laid down in MEERA CHAUHAN VS. HARSH BISHNOI 7 ANOTHER 2007 (2) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.), wherein it was observed in para No.8 that: “It is well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violating of the said order the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the order passed in the suit and also order police CR No.1342 of 2009 5 protection for implementation of such order.” It would be seen that no findings,whatsoever, have been recorded regarding violation of order by the petitioner. Furthermore, application under section 151 of the Code was moved in a petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code and not in the main suit. Reading of the order would show that learned Civil Judge has ordered the police help in a very casual manner, therefore. the impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, this revision is allowed. Order Annexure P.10 granting police help is ordered to be set aside. However, it is made clear that observations made in this order shall not be taken to be an expression of opinion on merit of the case. The learned trial court is directed to decide the application moved by the respondents under Order 39 Rules 2-A of the Code in accordance with law on the basis of pleadings and evidence which is led or may be led by the parties. However, keeping in view the respective stands taken by the parties learned trial court is directed to dispose of the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code expeditiously. (Vinod K.Sharma) 3.09.2009 Judge rp