Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 202 (HP)

HEM LAl SHARMA v. GRAM PANCHAYAT

2001-08-21

M.R.VERMA

body2001
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J (oral):- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.3.2001 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class (I), Shimla whereby the application of the petitioners under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) for grant of police assistance to enforce the j order of injunction passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.l3-S/14 of 1999 on 1.1.2000 has been dismissed. 2. The admitted facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that the learned District Judge, Shimla while allowing the aforesaid appeal and allowing the application of the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code passed the following order:- "For the fore-going reasons, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and consequently the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC is allowed and the respondents/defendants are hereby restrained from interfering in the water source of the plaintiffs, existing in Tager Nallah. It is, however, clarified that the water source of the plaintiffs, in respect of which temporary injunction is hereby granted, does not exist on khasra No.259/1 and taking advantage of this injunction is hereby granted, does not exist on khasra No.259/1 and taking advantage of this injunction, the plaintiffs cannot interfere in the water source alleged to exist on khasra No.259/1. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly...." 3. According to the petitioners, the respondents despite the aforesaid orders, continued to interfere with the enjoyment of the rights of the petitioners with the water source, therefore, they moved the aforesaid application before the learned sub Judge for grant of police assistance to enforce the aforesaid order on the ground that it was not possible for the petitioners to physically stop the interference caused by the respondents. 4. The application was resisted by the respondents. After hearing the parties, the learned Sub Judge directed the police to enforce the aforesaid order. 4. The application was resisted by the respondents. After hearing the parties, the learned Sub Judge directed the police to enforce the aforesaid order. In compliance of the orders passed by the learned Sub Judge, the S.H.O. concerned reported that the respondents had disobeyed the order of the Court and broken the water pipe line and a case F.I.R. Noi.163 of 2000 has been registered in Police Station, West, Shimla On receipt of this report, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the police can even be ordered to restore the water supply by again fixing the water pipe line in dispute. The learned Sub Judge, however, rejected the contention and refused to issue any further direction in the matter. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record. 6. It is by now well settled that when pursuant to the orders/directions issued by a Civil Court some act is to be performed and it is likely that performance of such act will be obstructed, the police help to ensure that there is no breach of peace or no obstruction is caused the court may provide police help for doing such act. Usually, such help may be required for enforcement of mandatory injunctions, delivery of possession etc. However, for enforcement of an order restraining a party from causing any interference which can be caused at any time for an indefinite period, as in this case, police protection or help can seldom be ordered. The Court below however did the same. The petitioners, however, further wanted that the Court must not issue directions to the police to restore the pipe line by fixing the water pipe line which is none of the job of the police nor police force is also, the police help could not be ordered by the learned Sub Judge for implementing a non-existent order. 7. In these circumstances, there is no illegality in the impugned order and it does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. As a result, this revision petition is dismissed. 9. Since the records have not been called, therefore, the parties will appear before the trial Court on the date, which might have been fixed by the said court.