Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarlochan Singh vs Rattan Kaur on 4 September, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
C.R.No. No.5504 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
C.R.No. No.5504 of 2014
Date of Decision: 04.09.2014
Tarlochan Singh
..... PETITIONER
VERSUS
Rattan Kaur and others
..... RESPONDENTS
PRESENT: - Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Akshita Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate
for the respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J
This petition is against the order dated 11.08.2014 by which the application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 C.P.C. for police help has been allowed.
The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-
respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that they had purchased the land measuring 5 bighas 7 biswas comprised in khasra No.276min (5-7) and land measuring 8 bighas comprised in khasra Nos.274 (5-13), 275 min (2-7) situated in village Dhumma, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala vide registered sale deeds dated 25.01.1994 and 27.06.1999 from its previous owner Gurdev Singh son of Bhagwan Singh. It is also averred that earlier respondent Tarlochan Singh had filed a Suit No.406 dated 13.05.1994, which was dismissed on 25.09.2000 by the Court of the Civil JYOTI 2014.09.12 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No. No.5504 of 2014 2 Judge, Jr. Divn. Rajpura in which he had challenged the sale deeds dated 27.06.1989, 25.01.1994 and 12.12.1989 and the relief of permanent injunction was also declined. Earlier Gurnam Singh had also filed a civil suit regarding the suit land, which was dismissed and appeal was also dismissed. However, the defendant had obtained a wrong order dated 29.07.2011 from A.C. IInd Grade, Rajpura regarding correction of khasra girdawari of the suit land, which has been challenged in appeal. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the suit land but the defendant is trying to dispossess them forcibly. They also filed an application for temporary injunction.
The claim of the petitioner was contested by the defendant by filing written statement alleging that the suit land is in his cultivating possession. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs might have purchased concerned land from other co-sharers but they cannot claim possession of specific khasra numbers till the same is partitioned by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs also filed a suit in regard to the same land, which was dismissed and their appeal was also dismissed. Meaning thereby, they were not granted injunction. It is also alleged that khasra girdwari of the land in dispute has been corrected in the name of respondents-defendants by circle revenue officer after visiting the spot vide order dated 29.07.2011 and now they are in cultivating possession.
The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings before it, passed the order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs on 08.10.2011 restraining the defendants from cutting/removing the paddy crops, or changing the nature by making any encroachment and from dispossessing the plaintiffs JYOTI 2014.09.12 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No. No.5504 of 2014 3 forcibly from the land measuring 13 bighas 7 biswas comprised in khasra Nos.276(5-7), 274(5-13), 275 min (2-7), situated in village Dumma, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
Aggrieved against the order of the temporary injunction passed by the trial Court, the defendant filed misc. appeal which too was dismissed on 21.09.2012. Meaning thereby, the injunction granted by the trial Court was upheld and maintained. The defendant preferred Civil Revision before this Court bearing No.515 of 2013, which was admitted on 04.12.2013 and the parties were directed to maintain status-quo regarding possession. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application for providing police help, which was disposed of on 18.07.2014 by passing the following order:
"Contends that despite status quo order passed by this Court on 04.12.2013, the respondents are misusing the same and creating trouble on the land. Both the Courts below have ad interim held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The present application is for police protection to reap the crop sown by the respondent. This prayer is open to be canvassed before the learned trial Court.
Mr. Dawar withdraws this application with liberty to press this prayer before the learned trial Court.
CM stands disposed of."
Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for grant of police help which has been allowed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Rajpura.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs, no injunction was granted to them and nothing has been brought on record as to how they JYOTI 2014.09.12 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No. No.5504 of 2014 4 entered into possession and the learned Courts below have erred in granting injunction. It is also submitted that only the order of status quo has been passed by this Court in Civil Revision. Therefore, no injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of which application under Section 151 C.P.C. could have been maintained for grant of police help.
In support of his submissions, he has relied upon judgments of this Court in the cases of Jagbir Singh Vs. Gajjan Singh, 2000(4) RCR (Civil) 232, Jage Ram Vs. Hari Singh, 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 274 and M/s Orient Craft Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Smt. Subhadra and others, 2011(1) CivCC 323.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that once ad interim injunction has been granted, it can be implemented with the police help and the Court can give directions to the parties to maintain status quo. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohd. Hamja Vs. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Lucknow and others, 2010(4) CivCC 280.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record of the case.
The issue involved in this case is whether the application filed by the respondents under Section 151 CPC is maintainable in view of the fact that no injunction order has been passed by this Court while admitting Civil Revision filed by the petitioner. There is no dispute that earlier the plaintiffs-respondents had filed civil suit No.407 dated 06.08.1994 for permanent injunction against the present petitioner, which was dismissed on JYOTI 02.04.2002. The appeal filed against it was also dismissed on 11.09.2002. 2014.09.12 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No. No.5504 of 2014 5 Both the orders have not been challenged by the respondents-plaintiffs.
However, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs had filed Civil Suit No.451 dated 17.09.2011 in which application for temporary injunction was also filed and allowed by the trial Court granting specific injunction in their favour. The said order challenged in appeal was maintained and revision filed against it is only admitted by this Court and no other order has been passed except for the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order of status quo passed by this Court is the modification of the order passed by the Courts below. Therefore, status quo order cannot be abused by the plaintiffs for the purpose of filing the application under Section 151 C.P.C. for the police help.
Before I advert to facts of the case any further, I would like to refer to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In case of Jagbir Singh (supra), the suit was filed by one Gajjan Singh claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the share in the suit land. He challenged the decree dated 10.11.1995 as null and void. He also sought a decree for permanent injunction. The application for temporary injunction was decided by the trial Court vide order dated 08.06.1998 directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession over the suit land as also regarding alienation and also regarding tubewell connection. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. before the trial Court for providing police help. The learned trial Court vide order dated 15.05.2000 allowed the said application and granted the police help. The JYOTI 2014.09.12 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No. No.5504 of 2014 6 said order was challenged by way of revision in this Court and it was held in the said case that the parties were directed to maintain status quo by the trial Court. No injunction is said to have been granted in favour of the plaintiffs and contesting defendant. If any ad interim injunction had been granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and if the plaintiff was apprehending interference by the defendants, certainly, the trial Court could grant police help to the plaintiff to maintain the order of injunction passed by the trial Court.
In case of Jage Ram (supra), the suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land comprised in khasra Nos.159/1/2 measuring 25 bighas 6 biswas. An application for temporary injunction was also filed, which was granted to maintain status quo order till the decision of the main suit. An application for police help was also filed. It was held by this Court that status quo order specifically indicates that question of possession is in fluid stage and it has not been finally decided as to which of the party is in possession of the suit land. The parties were required to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited judgment in the case of M/s Orient Craft Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) in order to highlight that if the suit itself is not maintainable, injunction cannot be granted.
On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Mohd. Hamja (supra), temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court directing the parties to maintain JYOTI 2014.09.12 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No. No.5504 of 2014 7 status quo. The plaintiff filed an application that the defendant, in violation of the order passed by the Court, is raising construction and also removing the trees standing over the land in question. Feeling aggrieved with the non- compliance of the order passed by the trial Court, he moved an application with the prayer that defendants be restrained from changing the nature of land, cutting the trees and raising construction over the land in question. The application was rejected by the Civil Court stating that the petitioner should have filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code. No order could be passed in pursuance of the provision contained in Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Allahabad High Court made the following observations:
"6. In a democratic and civilized society while dispensing justice courts possess 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.
7. 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 JYOTI 2014.09.12 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No. No.5504 of 2014 8 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 mute 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."
As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, there is an injunction order by both the Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs specifically restraining the defendant from doing a particular thing. The defendant approached this Court by way of Civil Revision. The revision petition was admitted and the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession. Meaning thereby, this Court had observed that the parties would remain in possession and the status of the property in dispute would remain the same till it is challenged by the order of the Court. In the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. case of Jagbir Singh (supra), there was no injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs as the trial Court itself granted status quo. Therefore, it was held by the Court that the trial Court is not sure which party is in possession of the suit land and thus police help could not have been granted as there is no JYOTI 2014.09.12 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No. No.5504 of 2014 9 order of injunction but in the present case, both the Courts below have already restrained the defendant from doing a particular thing and this Court when admitted the revision petition observed that status quo regarding possession shall be maintained which itself, means that it relates back to the order passed by the Courts below, who had granted injunction to the plaintiffs. Thus there is clear distinction in the present case as well as the facts of the cases relied by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is therefore held that in case where injunction is granted by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs and this Court grants status quo, to be maintained with regard to possession, it would mean that the injunction in favour of the plaintiffs is continued. It cannot be said that there is an injunction in favour of the defendant/petitioner because of the order of status quo which means that whatever position is existing, would relate back to the order passed by both the Courts below. In so far as, the other agitation of the petitioner that the suit itself is not maintainable, this is always open to him to file appropriate application before the Courts below in accordance with law to challenge.
With these observations, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE September 04, 2014 jt JYOTI 2014.09.12 13:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh