Bharpur Kaur vs Karamjit Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Bharpur Kaur, aggrieved by order dated 29.2.2012 Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing application of plaintiff for police held for compliance with interim injunction order dated 21.10.2011 Annexure P/2 upheld in appeal vide judgment 17.12.2011 Annexure P/3, has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said order Annexure P/5. Vide order Annexure P/2, the trial court allowed application of plaintiff/petitioner for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Appeal against said order preferred by the defendants stands dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment Annexure P/3. The plaintiff thereafter filed application alleging that inspite of aforesaid injunction order, the defendants were interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and were ought to destroy the plaintiff''s crop in violation of the aforesaid orders and therefore, police help is required.

Defendants by filing the reply Annexure P/4 to the application controverted the averments made in the application and pleaded that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and in fact the plaintiff herself wants to take possession of the suit land from the defendants under the garb of the aforesaid orders.

Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/5 has dismissed application of the plaintiff for grant of police help. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file whereas none has appeared for the respondents inspite of service and adjournments.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that police help is required to be granted to implement temporary injunction order Annexure P/2 as upheld in appeal vide judgment Annexure P/3. There is considerable merit in the contention. Even the trial court has observed in the impugned order that the defendants are required to comply with the aforesaid orders and they cannot be allowed to interfere in any manner with the possession of the plaintiff. Inspite thereof, the trial court has dismissed the plaintiff''s application for police help on the ground that vide calendar dated 6.12.2011, on account of scuffle between the parties, the defendants were arrested under sections 107/ 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.). However, this approach of the trial court is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Filing of the said calendar and arrest of the defendants under sections 107/ 151 Cr.P.C. rather strengthens the case of the plaintiff for grant of police help because it depicts that the defendants did try to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in violation of the temporary injunction order.

In addition to it, the defendants in their reply Annexure P/4 have even denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and have pleaded that the plaintiff wants to take possession of the suit land from the defendants. In other words, the defendants have asserted their own possession over the suit land which would prima facie depict violation of injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff, necessitating grant of police help as sought for by the plaintiff. Resultantly, I find that the impugned order passed by the trial court suffers from perversity, illegality and jurisdictional error. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for grant of police help for implementing injunction order dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure P/2) is allowed. Trial court is directed to grant requisite police help to the plaintiff in accordance with law for complying with temporary injunction order Annexure P/2.