IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.210 of 2011. Decided on: August 24,2011. Rajinder Singh and others …….Petitioners. Versus Jara Singh and others …….Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiffs for giving police assistance. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. The facts of the case are that the order of status quo was passed in regard to a passage by he learned trial Court. An application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent/plaintiffs that police assistance be given to implement the order of status quo and the impugned order was passed by the learned trial 2 Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter in dispute is of civil nature and it has to be implemented through the process of Court and in case the respondents have any grievance that the orders of status quo are being flouted by the petitioners, it is for them to move the Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his submission that the police assistance can be provided, has relied upon the decision in Delhi Development Authority versus Skipper Construction Co.(O) Ltd. and another, (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 622, in which a reference was made to the decision of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. In that case, the Court directed the restoration of possession to the plaintiff with the aid of police. 5. There is no dispute that the police assistance can be provided under Section 151 CPC in such matters, but that should be in appropriate cases. The dispute in the present case was in regard to user of passage and there are no allegations that the present petitioners have obstructed the use of passage by the respondents. Therefore, there was no justification to pass orders for police assistance. A further perusal of the record shows that the police had gone to the spot, implemented the order and as per the report of the SHO and the statements of the parties recorded, the path was got opened at the spot and both the parties agreed that 3 it shall be used accordingly. In case still the respondents have any grievance, they are at liberty to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. 6. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Record of the learned trial Court be returned back alongwith a copy of this judgment. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. August 24, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.