Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1298 (PNJ)

Raghu Nandan Kumar v. Jaswant Singh

2005-12-19

S.S.SARON

body2005
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. For the reasons stated, the amended memo of parties is taken on record and is substituted with the one originally filed. CM 25603-CII of 2005 stands disposed of. 2. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) Samrala whereby the application under Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for granting him police help to implement the injunction order dated 21.3.2005 has been dismissed. 3. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that in terms of order dated 21.3.2005, the defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property. The plaintiffs petitioners wanted to replace the sign board of the shop but the defendants respondents were interfering in the matter and were not allowing them to put the sign-board. Consequently, it was prayed that police help was necessary to implement the injunction order dated 21.3.2005. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr Divn) Samrala in pursuance of her impugned order found that there was nothing on the record to show that the defendants are threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs-petitioners from the shop in dispute. In fact, the plaintiffs-petitioners intended to put a sign-board in front of the shop for which they were not accommodated by the defendants. The sign-board, it was observed, was being put in such a manner that the light of the Chaubara above the tenanted premises and which was not a part of the tenanted premises, would be affected. 4. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no body is occupying the Chaubara above the tenanted premises and earlier also there were two sign boards which were larger in size. Besides, it is submitted that the sign board is 8 ft away from the windows of the Chaubara and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants-respondents. As such, to fully implement the order dated 21.3.2005, the defendants respondents are liable to be restrained from not interfering in the act of putting the sign-board for which police help is liable to be given. 5. As such, to fully implement the order dated 21.3.2005, the defendants respondents are liable to be restrained from not interfering in the act of putting the sign-board for which police help is liable to be given. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and am of the view that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Samrala having exercised her discretion in declining the application for putting up the sign board in the manner as is sought to be done by the plaintiffs petitioners, calls for no interference by this Court. It has been observed in the impugned order, after perusing the photographs, that the sign board which may be put would eventually block the windows of the Chaubara which is not a part of the tenanted premises. Besides, the sign board of the plaintiffs-petitioners, it is observed, has already been displayed under the tin shed. Therefore, the question whether the sign board is 8 ft away from the window or not, is in consequential. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr Divn) has observed that it would block the windows of the Chaubara. This finding of fact calls for no interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.