C. R. No. 722 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 722 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 26, 2010 Khushal Chand Sinha .... Petitioner Vs. Jaspal Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. P. L. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge, Panchkula (wrongly mentioned as Judicial Magistrate). In suit filed by respondents against the petitioner, by way of interim order, parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property. Plaintiffs moved application Annexure P-5 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking police protection for compliance of the C. R. No. 722 of 2010 2 said status quo order alleging that Subhash Chand etc., mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application (not party to the suit but claiming themselves to be agents of the defendant), started interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property in violation of status quo order. The said application has been allowed by the trial court by impugned order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure P-6), thereby directing the Station House Officer of Police Station Chandi Mandir to provide police protection against any illegal act of the defendant so that compliance of order of status quo could be maintained. The said order has been challenged by the defendant by filing the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that police protection has been granted for enforcement of interim status quo order only and there was no injunction order as such in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also contended that impugned order Annexure P-6 has been passed by the trial court without even affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondents contended that allegations of the plaintiffs in their application Annexure P-5 were not against the defendant, but were against Subhash Chand etc., who claimed themselves to be agents of defendant. C. R. No. 722 of 2010 3 I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The impugned order has been passed directing the concerned Station House Officer to provide police protection against any illegal act of the defendant. However, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the defendant before passing the impugned order. The impugned order is thus patently illegal and unsustainable being in contravention of principles of natural justice. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) is set aside. The trial court is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law on application Annexure P-5 moved by the plaintiffs after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. July 26, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE