CR NO.236/2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.236/2009 Date of Decision:16.1.2009 Jaspal Singh ..........Petitioner. Versus Bhagwan Singh and another. ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Gaurav Jain,Advocate for the petitioner-plaintiff. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Facts giving rise to the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, prohibitory and mandatory to the effect that respondents-defendants be restrained from dispossessing him from aara machine and atta chakki, described in the plaint and depicted in the site plan attached therewith, forcibly and without due process of law. In the injunction application filed alongwith the suit, respondent-defendant no.1 namely Bhagwan Singh was proceeded ex parte while respondent-defendant no.2 namely Arun Kumar put in appearance on 1.5.2003 alongwith his counsel and made a statement that petitioner-plaintiff will not be dispossessed from the suit property CR NO.236/2009 -2- forcibly and without due process of law. Accordingly, the injunction application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 1.5.2003. Thereafter the petitioner-plaintiff moved an application before the trial Court, under Section 151 CPC, seeking police help for enforcement of injunction order dated 1.5.2003 so as to restore his possession over the suit property. It was inter alia alleged therein that on 17.2.2005, respondent-defendant no.1 namely Bhagwan Singh alongwith his family members caused grievous injuries to the plaintiff and threw him out of the suit property. Upon notice, respondent-defendant Bhagwan Singh contested the said application under Section 151 CPC and filed reply. It was stated that in fact against the receipt of a sum of Rs.15,000/-, petitioner-plaintiff-Jaspal Singh had himself handed over the possession of the suit property and had given up all his rights over the aara machine etc. A receipt amounting to Rs.15,000/- duly executed by petitioner-plaintiff Jaspal Singh in favour of respondent-defendant Bhagwan Singh was also placed on record. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the respective pleas projected in the application and its reply, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Tohana, dismissed the application under Section 151 CPC vide impugned order dated 3.12.2008 (Annexure P/1). Hence the present revision petition under CR NO.236/2009 -3- Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and perusing the paper book, I find no fault with the approach adopted by the learned trial Court. In view of the conflicting stand taken by the petitioner- plaintiff and respondent-defendant, the application under Section 151 CPC could not have been decided until and unless evidence is adduced by both the sides. If at all, there is violation of the injunction order dated 1.5.2003,passed by the learned trial Court, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would have been to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and the application under Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for police help is not maintainable on that count also. For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 16.1.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge