C.R. No. 1802 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1802 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.3.2010 Sh. Ram Murti & others .......... Petitioners Versus Indus Tower Limited & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.2.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn.), Hoshiarpur vide which application moved by the petitioners under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking directions to the defendant / respondents for removing the tower and electric polls from the joint land of the parties, stands dismissed. The case of the petitioners was, that they filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from installing the Mobile Phone tower, as well as the electric polls, in the joint land belonging to the parties. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of t he Code of Civil Procedure was also moved. According to the petitioners, the learned trial Court by way of interim measure had C.R. No. 1802 of 2010 2 directed the parties to maintain status quo. The case of the petitioners is that in spite of the status quo order the respondent / defendants violated the order by installing the electric polls and mobile tower in the joint land. Therefore, the petitioners sought directions for removing the electric polls and mobile tower, so as to bring the suit land to the situation, which was on the date of filing of the suit. The application moved by the petitioners stands dismissed, by the learned trial Court by holding, that remedy with the applicant / petitioners was under the Contempt of Court i.e. to say that a specific remedy is available to the petitioners, under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil procedure, therefore, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, the petitioners could not seek directions for removal, especially, in view of the stand taken by the respondent / defendant, that the electric polls and the mobile tower, was installed prior to the filing of the suit. The learned Court held that in view of the position explained above, interim mandatory injunction, cannot be issued in favour of the petitioners and dismissed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tanusree Basu & Ors. Vs. Ishani Prasad Basu & Ors. 2008(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 519 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Baishnab Pradhan and others Vs. Guru Charan Pradhan 2003 AIR (Orissa) 73, to contend that it is the duty of the Court to take C.R. No. 1802 of 2010 3 notice of the changed circumstances and issue directions to bring back the status quo ante, in respect of the properties, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case referred did not accept the plea raised to set aside, an order passed by the learned lower Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in spite of the fact that remedy was available under Order 39 Rule 2- A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tanusree Basu & Ors. Vs. Ishani Prasad Basu & Ors. (supra) pleased to lay down that the Court has the jurisdiction to restore the parties back to position ante, if any party is dispossessed in contravention of the order of the Court. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. The learned trial Court held, that the stand of the defendants was that electric polls and the mobile tower were installed prior to passing of status quo order. Mere assertion of the petitioners, could not be taken to be gospel truth especially, when an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil procedure, has already been filed by the petitioners. In the said application it will be adjudicated, and finding recorded, as to whether there is any violation of the order of the injunction. It is only in case of proof of violation, that the Court has power to restore the position ante and not on mere asking of the C.R. No. 1802 of 2010 4 party, in view of the specific stand of the defendants, that there was no violation of order of status quo, as the electric polls and mobile tower were installed prior to filing of the suit. The judgment of the Honible Supreme Court in the case of Tanusree Basu & Ors. Vs. Ishani Prasad Basu (supra) and also of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Baishnab Pradhan and others Vs. Guru Charan Pradhan (supra) have no application to the facts of the present case. Once specific remedy is available, under the Code of Civil procedure, the general Provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. 18.3.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE