C.R. No. 969 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 969 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.2.2009 Ranbir Singh .. Petitioner v. R.K. Goel and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 7.11.2008, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of police help to ensure compliance of the interim order passed in his favour was rejected. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for injunction, in which vide interim order dated 23.7.2003, the respondents-defendants were restrained from dispossessing the petitioner-plaintiff from the shop in dispute. The submission is that during the pendency of the suit, the respondents-defendants demolished a neighbouring shop for reconstruction and in the process, water was seeping in the walls of the shop in possession of the petitioner, which is amounting to violation of the interim order passed by the Court in his favour and to ensure compliance thereof, police help should be granted. He further submitted that the court is bound to take necessary steps to ensure enforcement of the interim order in favour of a party. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is not a case where the petitioner is being dispossessed from the shop in question during the currency of the interim order passed in his favour by the learned court below. It is only that neighbouring shop, which is owned by the respondents, has been demolished and is being reconstructed. In the process if some seepage is coming towards the side of the shop of the petitioner, the same cannot be said to be in violation of the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of police help for C.R. No. 969 of 2009 [2] enforcement of the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner. The revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.2.2009 mk