C.R. No.5567 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5567 of 2006 Date of Decision: 19.08.2009 Sadhu Ram and others .....Petitioners Versus Dimple Kumar and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision is against the order granting police protection for effective implementation of the order dated 14.06.2006. The order dated 14.06.2006 was issued in an application filed by the plaintiff for interim injunction restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 from putting up any construction on the ground that the defendants were co-owners with the plaintiffs. The Court found that no prima facie case had been made and the application for injunction was dismissed. The order of status quo granted on 06.06.2006 also stood vacated. From a reading of the order, it is seen that the plaintiff's prayer for injunction was denied. 2. Admittedly the order dated 14.06.2006 does not grant any C.R. No.5567 of 2006 -2- relief of injunction against the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. It has merely stated that the status quo which had been issued was vacated. The preservation of status quo is an important feature for the relief of injunction itself and vacating the order of injunction has an obvious consequence of even vacating the status quo order. In other words, the reference by the Court that the status quo order was being vacated was stating the obvious and a needless surplusage. This direction cannot mean that the defendant has any particular order in his favour, which he can seek an enforcement with the aid of the police. The rejection of the claim of the plaintiff cannot mean that the defendant has been armed with a potent order for enforcement. While it may be independently possible for a defendant to apply to the Court for injunction and also secure the same, if he establishes the basic parameters necessary for issuance of order of injunction, the order dated 14.06.2006 shall not enable him to secure police protection for the order does not grant to the defendant any positive right for an enforcement. The impugned order is erroneous and is set aside. 3. The civil revision is allowed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 19, 2009 Pankaj*