Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 836 (HP)

Manohar Lal v. Vijay Pathania

2016-05-18

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Petitioners are defendants in the trial Court. They are legal heirs of deceased defendant Manohar Lal. Petitioners-defendants are owner of shop situate in Mohal and Mauza Shekhupur, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. Their predecessor-in-interest, deceased Manohar Lal had executed an agreement Ext. P-1 to this petition and thereby rented out the shop to respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) for a period of five years. The rent as agreed upon was Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid in advance to deceased Manohar Lal in lumpsum as he was in need of money. It was agreed upon that this amount was to be refunded by the defendants to the plaintiff within a period of five years and the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the shop back to said Sh. Manohar Lal. However, dispute qua repayment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and handing over the vacant possession of the shop arose between the parties. The matter was taken to local Gram Panchayat. The agreement/compromise Ext. P-2 to this petition was arrived at before the Gram Panchayat, however, the same seems to be not acted upon and the plaintiff has filed the suit for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing him from the shop in dispute, otherwise than in due course of law. In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned trial Court has admittedly restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the shop in dispute, otherwise than in due course of law. 2. It is during the currency of the interim injunction so granted, defendant Manohar Lal has committed suicide on 21.07.2015 and the allegations were leveled against the plaintiff that it is, he who abetted the commission of suicide by said Sh. Manohar Lal as the later allegedly was being tortured by the former and it is for this reason, he committed suicide. The local residents seems to have protested against the commission of suicide of said Sh. Manohar Lal and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur had to intervene in the matter with the assistance of local police. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate initiated the proceedings under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and finding apprehension of breach of peace, locked the disputed shop under his supervision. Manohar Lal and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur had to intervene in the matter with the assistance of local police. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate initiated the proceedings under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and finding apprehension of breach of peace, locked the disputed shop under his supervision. The respondent-plaintiff allegedly approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to unlock the shop and handing over possession thereof to him. The interim order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Indora, District Kangra was also brought to the notice of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but of no avail. The respondent-plaintiff was, therefore, forced to file an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which came to be registered as CMA No. 71 of 2016 in the pending civil suit. The Court below has not only taken on record the response of the petitioners-defendants, but also that of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur to the application. 3. While the claim of the plaintiff is that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate has locked the shop in violation of the interim order passed by the civil Court, the response of the petitioners-defendants and also that of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate is that since Sh. Manohar Lal has committed suicide and it is the plaintiff who allegedly abetted the commission of suicide by him, therefore, there was apprehension of breach of peace and that the only alternative was to put the disputed shop under lock and key. 4. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the pleadings of the parties has arrived at a conclusion that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no authority to have locked the disputed shop, as by way of interim order, the defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff there from otherwise than in due course of law. Consequently, the application has been allowed with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur to open the lock of the shop and put the plaintiff in possession of the shop within a period of seven days. The defendants have also been directed to comply with the stay order. 5. Since in the interim, this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo as on 20.04.2016, qua the possession of the disputed shop, therefore, according to learned counsel the same is still under lock and key after locked by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur on 21.07.2015. 6. The defendants have also been directed to comply with the stay order. 5. Since in the interim, this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo as on 20.04.2016, qua the possession of the disputed shop, therefore, according to learned counsel the same is still under lock and key after locked by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur on 21.07.2015. 6. On hearing learned counsel on both sides and going through the record, it would not be improper to conclude that the impugned order is absolutely legal and valid as the same was required to be passed to maintain the rule of law. The trial Court is absolutely justified in making the observations that the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, instead of taking action against the people engaged themselves in hooliganism and were protesting, has chosen to dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed shop, which was in his rightful possession by virtue of the interim order passed by the trial Court. As a matter of fact, had there been any agitation or apprehension of breach of peace, it was due to the people who were agitating on the spot and not due to any act, conduct or untoward behaviour of the respondent-plaintiff. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate rather has violated the order passed by the civil Court by forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the disputed shop. This Court feels that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who has failed to discharge his functions, resorted to unlawful ways and means to maintain peace and harmony viz. by putting the lock on the disputed shop in violation of the interim order passed by the competent civil Court. This Court refrain itself from making any other and further observations qua this aspect of the matter, except for that such an approach on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not at all appreciated. 7. The impugned order is absolutely legal and valid and calls for no interference by this Court. The suit is presently at the stage of final arguments and according to Mr. Sharma fixed for the purpose on 17.06.2016. It is expected from learned trial Judge to hear arguments in the suit on the date fixed and dispose it of at the earlier, however, not beyond 20th July, 2016. 8. The petition, therefore, being without any merits is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.