Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 627 (PNJ)

Jagbir Singh v. Gajjan Singh

2000-06-01

V.M.JAIN

body2000
ORDER V.M. Jain, J. - Notice of motion. Shri V.G. Dogra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Counsel for the parties submit that they are ready with the case and final arguments may be heard. 2. Heard. This is a revision petition against the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the trial Court ordering the grant of police help to Gajjan Singh, plaintiff, for compliance of the order of status quo passed by the trial Court. 3. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Gajjan Singh had filed a suit for on claiming himself to the owner in possession of the share in the suit land, detailed in the heading of the plaint and also challenging the decree dated 10.11.1995 as null and void based on fraud etc. and also challenging the mutation sanctioned on the basis of said decree as null and void and also seeking decree for permanent injunction, as a consequential relief restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating the suit land and also restraining defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and also in respect of the tubewell. Alongwith the suit the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for the grant of ad interim injunction. The said application was decided by the trial Court vide order dated 8.6.1998 directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession over the suit land as also regarding alienation and also regarding tubewell connection. 4. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the trial Court for providing police help to the plaintiff for the purpose of harvesting the wheat crop sown by the plaintiff over the suit land. The said application was contested by defendant No. 1. After hearing both sides, learned trial Court vide order dated 15.5.2000, allowed the said application and granted police help to the plaintiff in order to harvest the wheat crop. Aggrieved against this order of the trial Court, defendant No. 1 has filed the present revision petition. 5. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. 6. After hearing both sides, learned trial Court vide order dated 15.5.2000, allowed the said application and granted police help to the plaintiff in order to harvest the wheat crop. Aggrieved against this order of the trial Court, defendant No. 1 has filed the present revision petition. 5. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 at the outset, has submitted before me that the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the trial Court has since been implemented inasmuch as the police help was provided to the plaintiff on 26.5.2000 and that with the help of the police, the plaintiff had harvested the standing crop peacefully. It was further alleged that revision petition has become infructuous. An affidavit of Gajjan Singh, respondent No. 1, has been placed on record in this regard. 7. Even if the order dated 15.5.2000 has been implemented and police help has been granted to the plaintiff on 26.5.2000 and the plaintiff has harvested the standing crop with the police help, yet it is still to be determined as to whether the trial Court was competent to pass order dated 15.5.2000 ordering the grant of police help to the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the revision petition has become infrustuous. 8. In the present case, as referred to above, the trial Court while deciding the ad interim injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC on 8.6.1998 had directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the possession over the suit property. No injunction was granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff or against contesting defendant No. 1. If that be the position, in my opinion, the trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the grant of police help to the plaintiff in order to allow the plaintiff to harvest the wheat crop sown in the suit land. If any ad interim injunction had been granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and if the plaintiff was apprehending interference by the defendants, certainly, the trial Court could grant police help to the plaintiff to maintain the order of injunction passed by the trial Court. If any ad interim injunction had been granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and if the plaintiff was apprehending interference by the defendants, certainly, the trial Court could grant police help to the plaintiff to maintain the order of injunction passed by the trial Court. However, in the present case only order of status quo was passed and in these circumstances, no case was made out for granting police help to the plaintiff. That being so, the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated 15.5.2000 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff for grant of police help is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision allowed.