IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.215 of 2011. Decided on: August 25,2011. Jindu Ram …….Petitioner. Versus Khekh Ram alias Khekhu Ram and another …….Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General for respondent No.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 9.6.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali, District Kullu, H.P. vide which the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for giving police assistance was allowed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. A perusal of the record shows that the order was passed by the learned trial Court on 7.5.2010 2 that the parties shall maintain status quo qua the possession of the suit path till the decision of the main suit on merits. Thereafter, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application for police assistance on 21.10.2010 and the learned trial Court vide its impugned order allowed the said application. In allowing the application, the learned trial Court has made reference to the report of the Local Commissioner appointed, who had opined that there existed a path over Khasra No.749 leading from Khasra No.749, which had been blocked by the defendant to cause hindrance to the plaintiff. The defendant had filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner, which have not been disposed of so far. There is a reply filed by the respondent-State also that no path existed over the suit land. 4. The order of status quo was passed by the Court which means that the things shall be preserved as it existed on the date of filing of the suit. Neither the order of status quo leads to an implication that the path shall be used by the respondent/plaintiff and in case there was any hindrance to the path after the passing of the order of status quo, such prayer should have been made in the application filed for police assistance. A perusal of the said application shows that the plaintiff has only prayed that police assistance be provided. There were no allegations that after the passing of the order of status quo, this hindrance has 3 been caused which has prevented the parties to implement the order of status quo passed by the Court. The order of status quo does not lead to the impression that the path shall be created and the report of the Local Commissioner relied upon, at this stage, cannot be said to be conclusive that the police assistance can be provided. The police assistance in appropriate cases can be provided and the application under Section 151 CPC can be allowed but there was no clear cut order of injunction in favour of the respondent and keeping in view the assertions made in the application for police assistance, the allowing of the said application was not justified. 5. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Record of the learned trial Court be returned back alongwith a copy of this judgment. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 16.9.2011. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute, the learned trial Court shall attempt to refer the case for mediation so that the dispute can be solved to the satisfaction of both the parties. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. August 25, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.