Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 961 (HP)

Vidya Devi v. Khayali Ram

2019-07-16

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajav Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP, in CMA No. 137-6 of 2019 filed in Civil Suit No. 81-1 of 2019, vide which an application filed by the respondent herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of police assistance to implement the order passed by the learned Trial Court in an application so filed by the respondent herein (who is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), has been allowed. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order as well as documents appended with the petition. 3. Record demonstrates that respondent herein/ plaintiff has filed a suit before the learned Court below praying for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from causing any interference in the construction work being carried out by the plaintiff over the suit land. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was also filed. On this application, on 24.4.2019, learned Court passed the following order:- "Be listed for filing reply on 3-5-19. Till then respondents are restrained from causing interference in the suit land." 4. Feeling aggrieved by the factum of the said order not being obeyed by the petitioners herein, respondent/ plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code before the learned Trial Court praying for police assistance in the implementation of the ad interim order passed by the learned Trial Court. The same was contested by the petitioners herein. This application has been allowed by the learned Trial Court by way of the impugned order by directing the concerned Police Station to implement order dated 24.04.2019 at the spot by use of necessary force if required under the circumstances at the spot. 5. The same was contested by the petitioners herein. This application has been allowed by the learned Trial Court by way of the impugned order by directing the concerned Police Station to implement order dated 24.04.2019 at the spot by use of necessary force if required under the circumstances at the spot. 5. While passing the said order, learned Trial Court held that as the applicant therein had satisfied the Court that the injunction order passed by it was being disobeyed, therefore, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, the Court could direct the police authorities to render aid to the applicant for the purpose of enforcement of order of injunction granted by the Court. Learned Court also took into consideration the stand of the present petitioners (respondents before it), who had denied that they were causing any interference or restraining the applicant therein from raising construction over his old foundation. Learned Court observed that if this was the case, then also if the police assistance was granted to the applicant, the same would not harm the non-applicants, because if they were not restraining the applicants from raising construction over the old foundations, then they would not be affected by the order of providing police assistance. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the passing of the said order, the petitioners have filed this petition. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned Court has erred in granting police assistance to the respondent. He has argued that as learned Court had only passed an ad interim order, therefore, till the same attained finality, no order of police protection could have been passed in favour of the applicant therein by the learned Trial Court. He has further argued that one of the petitioners, i.e. petitioner No. 6, has also filed a suit against the present respondent and in that suit, there was an injunction order passed in favour of petitioner No. 6 and this important aspect of the matter has also not been taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that submission so made on behalf of the petitioners are without any merit. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that submission so made on behalf of the petitioners are without any merit. It is not in dispute that there is an ad interim order passed in favour of the present respondent by the learned Trial Court on 24.04.2019. It is not in dispute that on the ground of alleged non-compliance of said order by the present petitioner, an application stood filed by the respondent before the learned Trial Court for grant of police assistance. Said application has been allowed by the learned Trial Court after prima-facie coming to the conclusion that the order passed by it on 24.4.2019 was being violated by the present petitioners. That being so, in my considered view, there is no perversity with the order passed by the learned Trial Court wherein it has directed the police authorities to render necessary police assistance for implementation of order passed by it on 24.04.2019. This Court concurs with the findings so returned by the learned Trial Court that in case present petitioners are not violating the order passed by learned Court below on 24.4.2019, then providing of police assistance by the learned Trial Court is nothing but an innocuous order, because it will not have any-adverse effect on them if their version is correct that they are not causing any interference nor they are restraining the respondent from making construction over his old foundations. On the contrary, if there is any interference being caused by them despite there being an injunction order passed by the learned Trial Court, then, learned Trial Court is within its jurisdiction to exercise its inherent powers conferred under Section 151 of the Code to ensure that the order(s) passed by it are obeyed. 9. As far as the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that no order of police protection could have been passed by learned Trial Court till the ad interim order was made absolute is concerned, in my considered view, there is no merit in the same. An ad interim order has the same force as any final order and a party cannot refuse to abide by an ad interim order passed by any Court simply on the ground that the same is only an ad interim direction. An ad interim order has the same force as any final order and a party cannot refuse to abide by an ad interim order passed by any Court simply on the ground that the same is only an ad interim direction. His other contention that the impugned order is bad as learned Court below has not gone into the effect of a restraint order being there against the plaintiff in a suit filed by present petitioner No. 6, in my considered view, is also without any merit. Learned Counsel has not been able to connect the so called interim order passed in favour of petitioner No. 6 with the suit land. It could not be pointed out by the petitioners as to what is the suit filed by petitioner No. 6 and what order has been passed in favour of petitioner No. 6 in the same and the same pertains to which land. 10. In view of above discussion, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No orders as to costs.