Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2759 (ALL)

Shanti Devi v. Pankaj Kumar and others

2011-12-05

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.:- Notice on behalf of opposite party nos.3 and 4 has been accepted by Mr. Manish Kumar. Issue notice to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 returnable at an early date. List immediately after service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a Suit for permanent injunction which was numbered as Suit No. 255 of 1993 in which vide order dated 3.4.1993, the competent Court granted interim injunction in favour of petitioner restraining the opposite parties from interfering in the peaceful possession of the property in question. In spite of the injunction having been granted by the competent Court in the said Suit, the opposite party nos.1 and 2 continued to interfere in the property in question insofar as they are cutting the trees, which were erected over the disputed plot as well as the structures standing therein. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application 113Ga seeking police protection to ensure compliance of the order dated 3.4.1993 under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure alongwith affidavit. The said application was rejected by the order dated 8.8.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision which too was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2011 inter alia on the ground that the Courts have no jurisdiction under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides for the saving of the inherent powers of the Court in order to meet the "ends of justice" or to avoid the "abuse of the process of the Court".The Apex Court has held, Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice. Section 151 of the C.P.C gives inherent powers to the Court to do justice. That provision has to be interpreted to mean that every procedure is permitted to the Court for doing justice unless expressly prohibited and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 1966 SC 1899 (V 53 C 384), M/s. Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Private Ltd. Barabanki (U.P.) Vs. Kanhayalal Bhargava and others, held that the court is competent to make suitable order under Section 151 of the CPC as may be necessary for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of court. Kanhayalal Bhargava and others, held that the court is competent to make suitable order under Section 151 of the CPC as may be necessary for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of court. There is nothing in Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure which expressly or by necessary implication precludes the exercise of the inherent power of Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In one another case reported in 2004 (4) SCC 468, Vikas Aggarwal Vs. Anubha their Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the code of civil procedure can always be exercised to advance interests of justice and the technicalities will have no place in such matters. Order 39 of the Code does not expressly or by necessary implication preclude the exercise of inherent power by the court under Section 151 of the CPC. Court may pass appropriate suitable order to meet out the ends of justice. In one another case reported in 2004 (6) SCC 378, Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese and others their Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principle and held that in appropriate matter court may pass appropriate order to meet out the ends of justice. It has been held that inherent power of the court is to do justice in addition to and complementary to powers conferred under CPC, expressly or by implication. In a democratic and civilized society while dispensing justice courts posses two folds of duty. For the purpose to secure statutory and constitutional right delivery of judgment or pass an order or direction to meet the ends of justice and secondly to ensure that order passed by it while dispensing justice is implemented in its letter and spirit by the parties or authorities concerned. These are the basic tenets of rule of law in a civilized society so far as courts are concerned. Failure on the part of court to ensure the ends of justice may result into destruction of rule of law creating chaos in the society and breaking up social order. Accordingly, judicial officers or judges should always be alert to ensure that their orders are complied with by persons or authorities concerned. In view of above, the court has got ample power to enforce its order. Accordingly, judicial officers or judges should always be alert to ensure that their orders are complied with by persons or authorities concerned. In view of above, the court has got ample power to enforce its order. Local authorities or officers concerned may be directed to ensure the compliance of injunction granted by the Court. The court has got ample power to direct the police to ensure that no construction should be raised and parties may not remove any structure standing over the disputed land in terms of injunction granted by the Court. It should be paramount consideration of court to ensure that rule of law should be maintained and orders of the court must be complied with in its letter and spirit. Power to punish under the contempt procedure does not fulfill the requirement and in case court remain moot spectator and permit the parties or authorities to violate its order, damage may cause to parties and may suffer from irreparable loss and injury. Accordingly trial court should have issued appropriate direction or order to the local authorities and administration to ensure compliance of injunction granted by it in pursuance to inherent power conferred by Section 151 of the CPC and it shall be obligatory for the State authorities to comply with such order. Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the orders dated 12.10.2011 and 8.8.2011 passed by the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 respectively shall remain in abeyance. The opposite parties are restrained from interfering in the property in question in any manner whatsoever, including the demolition and cutting of trees. It is further provided that in case, the petitioner approaches the police authorities, they will act accordingly.