C.R. No. 1065 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1065 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 24, 2011 Darshan Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Surjit Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Premjit Kalia, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff- petitioner is aggrieved by an interim order dated October 6, 2010 to grant police help to the plaintiff- petitioner to harvest the paddy crop on the land in dispute measuring 31 kanals 8 marlas. Brief facts apparent from the record are that the plaintiff- petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant- respondents restraining them from interfering in the land in dispute. The application for interim injunction was dismissed by the trial Court vide C.R. No. 1065 of 2011 [2] order dated September 27, 2008. In an appeal filed before Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, the application for interim injunction was allowed and it was ordered that defendant- respondents would be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff- petitioner over the land measuring 31 kanals 8 marlas. In order to get the benefit of interim order dated May 17, 2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, the appellant filed an application for police help for harvesting the standing paddy crop which application has been dismissed by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has got jurisdiction and inherent power to implement the order of temporary injunction and to depute police for implementation of the order. In support of his contention he relied upon, Meera Chauhan Vs. Harsh Bishnoi and another, 2007 (2) CCC 1 and Thakur Das Vs. Harijan Sudhar Samiti, 1995 (1) RRR 157 holding that an injunction order which has become final can be enforced by the Court and the Court is not justified in refusing police help if the implementation of the injunction order is being obstructed for any reason whatsoever till the order stand. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the Court has got an inherent power to implement the orders of temporary injunction if it is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In the present case, the allegations of the petitioner regarding an attempt to dispossess him are absolutely vague. It is not the case of the C.R. No. 1065 of 2011 [3] petitioner that he has been dispossessed in disobedience of the interim order. No specific day, date or time has been mentioned in his application for enforcing the interim injunction order. Even the nature of the crop has not been mentioned in the application. The judgment of Meera Chauhan’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said case, despite the interim injunction, the plaintiff had been dispossessed. It was observed by the Apex Court that documentary and oral evidence has to be produced to prove possession at the relevant time when both the parties claim to be in possession at the relevant time. In the present case it is not the case of the plaintiff that he has been dispossessed from the property in dispute. The facts and circumstances of the present case indicate that it is not a fit case where necessary direction should be issued to the police. The said inherent power can be exercised by a Court when it is necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. The application for police help prima facie appears to be a device to either pressurize the defendant- respondents or to create circumstances to prejudice the rights of the parties. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. Nothing observed in this order will, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioner during the course of the trial. February 24, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE