Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 404 (CAL)

Swapan Kumar Patra v. Hirak Nath Sount

2011-03-21

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2011
JUDGMENT:- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.30 dated December 8, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Medinipur in Title Suit No.92 of 2006 thereby rejecting an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. seeking for police help. The short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.92 of 2006 against the opposite parties for declaration and injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Medinipur. In that suit, the defendants are contesting by filing a written statement. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction and he moved for ad interim order. That prayer for ad interim order restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit properties had been granted. Thereafter, the application for temporary injunction was heard and disposed of by the learned Trial Judge. The defendants preferred a misc. appeal and the learned District Judge disposed of the said misc. appeal directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit properties. The contention of the plaintiff is that in utter violation of the said order, the defendants encroached the house of the plaintiff with arms, rods, etc. and they assaulted the plaintiff, his wife and children. They also demolished the kitchen, latrine, etc. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application for police help. That application was rejected holding that the plaintiff might take appropriate steps before the criminal Court. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff has claimed title over the suit property on the basis of the fact that the suit properties originally belonged to his father and that his father executed a Will distributing the property amongst his wife, the plaintiff and another son and one daughter, thus, each inherited 1/4th share in the suit property. The mother of the plaintiff obtained letters of administration in respect of the suit properties. The mother of the plaintiff obtained letters of administration in respect of the suit properties. But the defendants, on the plea of purchase of the suit property from the other co-owners, invaded his house in the utter disobedience of the order of the learned District Judge assaulted him and other members of his family and then they demolished the kitchen and latrine of the plaintiff. So, he filed an application seeking for police protection before the learned Trial Judge and his prayer was turned down. Being aggrieved, this application has been filed. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the there is no dispute that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/4th share in respect of the properties in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint. Admittedly, the plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No.92 of 2006 against the defendants praying for declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit properties and at the time of filing of the suit, he prayed for ad interim injunction. It was granted. Subsequently, the order of injunction was confirmed at the time of disposal of the temporary injunction. That order was confirmed by the learned District Judge in the Misc. appeal and the learned District Judge directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit properties. In spite of that, the violation has been made as per allegation. A serious allegation has been leveled against the defendants that they assaulted the plaintiff and other members of his house and they demolished the kitchen and latrine of the complainant. No doubt, that the plaintiff has the right to seek remedy before the Criminal Court. For that reason, the civil Court is not powerless to take appropriate action when such allegation is made. The civil Court is competent enough to give protection in respect of the life and property of the persons. In the instant case, the learned District Judge directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit properties and so it is the duty of the Court to see that such order is being maintained. For that purpose, if police protection is necessary, that remedy could be given in appropriate cases. My observations, in this regard, get support from the decision of Sujit Pal Vs. Prabir Kr. For that purpose, if police protection is necessary, that remedy could be given in appropriate cases. My observations, in this regard, get support from the decision of Sujit Pal Vs. Prabir Kr. Sur and ors. reported in AIR 1986 Cal 220 . But the learned Trial Judge has evaded his function simply by stating that the plaintiff is at liberty to take appropriate steps before the criminal Courts. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be supported. It is, therefore, set aside. The plaintiff is at liberty to pray for police help if required before the learned Trial Judge. If an application is filed to that effect by the plaintiff or the defendants, the learned Trial Judge is at liberty to take appropriate steps to honour the order passed by the learned District Judge. This application, therefore, succeeds. The application is, therefore, allowed in the manner indicated above. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.