Punjab-Haryana High Court
Priyag Chand vs Laxmi Devi And Others on 7 April, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
CR No.2259 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.2259 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 7.4.2010
Priyag Chand ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Laxmi Devi and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Rajiv Raina, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
CM No.8573-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.2259 of 2010 As per the averments made in this petition, the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rewari, passed an order on 21.3.2007 vide which while dismissing the application for ad interim injunction moved by the petitioner, the parties to the suit were restrained from raising any fresh construction or from demolishing any existing construction till disposal of the partition proceedings. The above said order was confirmed by the District Judge, Rewari vide order dated 23.7.2008 and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Even revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by this Court against the aforesaid order on 9.7.2009.
Meanwhile a petition under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC filed by the petitioner for violation of the order dated 21.3.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Rewari, was pending. In the aforesaid petition, issues were framed and the case was pending for CR No.2259 of 2010 (O&M) 2 evidence of the petitioner. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner moved an application for providing him police help submitting that respondents No.1 and 2 had attempted to grab the property of the petitioner comprising Killa No.9/1 measuring 5 Kanal 11 marlas despite having the knowledge about the orders passed by this Court. It was alleged that the respondents came to the suit property on 9.9.2009 along with their henchmen and bad elements of the area carrying with them lathies etc. and tried to plough the fields with the help of tractor with the sole motive to dispossess the petitioner from the suit property and further they demolished and dismantled the part of the boundary wall erected by the petitioner and further demolished the wall of the shops to deprive the petitioner to use and enjoy the same, forcibly, illegally and unauthorisedly. It was further alleged by the petitioner that he also lodged a complaint to the higher officials, however, the police of the area had colluded with respondents No.1 and 2 and did not cooperate with the petitioner. It was prayed that in the interest of justice, directions be given to the police to grant police aid to the petitioner for implementation of the order dated 21.3.2007 and other orders and also prayed that direction be issued to ensure the lives or the property of the petitioner and his family members.
The aforesaid application was contested by respondents No.1 and 2 by filing reply submitting therein that the petitioner has never remained in possession of the suit property and the respondents had not violated any order passed by the Court. The petitioner had concealed material facts from the Court and the aforesaid application was liable to be dismissed.
The trial Court vide order dated 24.2.2010 dismissed the aforesaid application holding that there was no evidence on the file to prove that any of the parties was in actual physical possession. The CR No.2259 of 2010 (O&M) 3 parties were co-sharers in the suit property and both the parties were restrained from raising any other construction or from demolishing any construction till disposal of the partition proceedings. The trial Court also observed that there was no reasonable ground shown by the petitioner to provide police help for safety of his property and life and in fact, the petitioner had the liberty to file a private complaint, if the police was not taking any action and as such, dismissed the application.
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the trial Court has failed to exercise its inherent powers vested in it for implementing the orders and further to preserve or save and protect the properties in question ignoring the settled law. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment cited as Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi and another 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 597. Learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ram Singh v. Jaggar Singh 2001(3) CCC 397 (P&H), Smt. Charubala Dev Nath v. Shri Niranjan Pathak AIR 1993 Calcutta 288, Papanna v. Nagachari and others AIR 1996 Karnataka 256, P. Shanker Rao v. Smt. B. Susheela AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh 214, Gram Panchayat, Daroli Jat v. Smt. Lokesh Devi & others 1999 (Suppl.) CCC 371 to contend that for implementation of ad interim injunction, police help can be granted in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the contents of the revision petition, impugned order and the other documents placed on record. I have also perused the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner.
There is no dispute with the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in the facts and circumstances of the CR No.2259 of 2010 (O&M) 4 case, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed.
Admittedly, the parties are co-sharers and partition proceedings are pending between the parties. It is well settled that possession of a co-sharer upon any portion out of the joint holding is subject to partition. Moreover, while disposing of Civil Revision petition No.2579 of 2008 vide order dated 9.7.2009 filed by the petitioner, this Court observed that neither the defendants have been held to be in actual physical possession nor it is alleged that there is eminent threat from the defendants to the property in dispute in any manner and in these circumstances, there was no ground to interfere with the order dated 21.3.2007 passed by the trial Court.
While dismissing the application of the petitioner, the trial Court found that there was no evidence on the file to prove that there was any inference by any of the parties in each other's working and there was no reasonable ground shown by the petitioner to provide police help. Moreover, petition under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC filed by the petitioner is pending for adducing evidence and the petitioner is at liberty to prove his allegations therein.
In this view of the observations, it was not a case where the trial Court should have invoked its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC must be exercised by the Court only in the exceptional circumstances for which the civil procedure code lays down no other procedure.
Dismissed.
April 7, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CR No.2259 of 2010 (O&M) 5 CR No.2259 of 2010 (O&M) 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2259 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: .4.2010 Priyag Chand ......Petitioner(s) Versus Laxmi Devi and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Rajiv Raina, Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.