1 WP 6795.2011- [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6795 OF 2011 1. Kishor S/o Tabaji Bhalerao Age : 26 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Baragaon Nandur, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. 2. Amol S/o Tabaji Bhalerao Age : 21 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Baragaon Nandur, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. 3. Kum. Rupali D/o Tabaji Bhalerao Age : 25 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Baragaon Nandur, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. 4. Kum. Manish D/o Tabaji Bhalerao Age : 20 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Baragaon Nandur, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. 5. Sow. Mandakini W/o Tabaji Bhalerao Age : 46 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Baragaon Nandur, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Dilip S/o Bhanudas Kohkade Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Baragaon Nandur, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. 2 WP 6795.2011- [ J ] 2. Pushpabai Babasaheb Kohkade Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Baragaon Nandur, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. : Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. P.S.Pawar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.K.Shinde, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 22/09/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The Petitioners are the original defendants. The present respondents had filed Suit for injunction. The plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction. The same was allowed restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants preferred Appeal. The Appeal came to be dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed an application U/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ‘ the Code’ ] for grant of police aid. The said application is allowed. The defendants have assailed the said 3 WP 6795.2011- [ J ] order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below for mere asking, granted the said relief of police aid. No such acts of commissions on the part of petitionerare stated which would warrant the grant of police aid. The police aid can not be granted on the basis of the bald averments made in the application. 4. Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the court has taken into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs are not in a position to cultivate the suit properties and get the benefit of the order in favour of the plaintiffs. Even in the application, it has been very specifically stated that the obstruction is being made by the defendants. Even the defendants have not denied the said fact, on the contrary claimed possession. This fact is sufficient to grant police aid. 5. No doubt, the Court has powers to grant police aid invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the Code. But, the same is to be invoked in exceptional circumstances and not for mere asking. The same is a harsh action. Unless the plaintiff makes out the case for grant of police aid and shows exigency, the order granting police aid can not be made. The learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Nirabai J. Patil V/s Narayan D.Patil reported in 2004 ( 3 ) Bom. C.R. - 226 has observed thus, 4 WP 6795.2011- [ J ] “ As observed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the grant of police aid is an extreme step and therefore order for grant of police help or police assistance can not be made unless the Court is fully convinced about the existence of grave emergency such as apprehension of violence by the persons against whom the order has been passed. It is very difficult to give exhaustive list of circumstances in which the Court can exercise the said power. However, said power is to be exercised with caution and the said power can be exercised only after the Court is fully convinced of existence of grave situation warranting exercise of said power ”. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that no circumstances or overt acts are discussed by the Court while passing the impugned order. Even the application [ Exh. 21 ] taken as it is, may not be sufficient to entertain the prayer for police aid. 7. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application [ Exh. 21 ] stands rejected. However, it is made clear that if the plaintiffs make out a case for grant of police aid bringing forth the necessary circumstances and the overt act and if such an application is filed by the plaintiffs, the Court shall consider the said application on its own merits. 5 WP 6795.2011- [ J ] 8. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6795.2011- [ J ]