Allowed

Bharpur Kaur v. Karamjit Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2013CR/2560/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenges the trial court's order dismissing a plea for police help to enforce a temporary injunction regarding land possession. The High Court found the lower court's decision perverse and illegal, noting that prior arrests under Cr.P.C. and the respondents' denial of possession actually justified granting police aid. The revision was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; impugned order set aside; application for grant of police help to implement temporary injunction allowed with directions to trial court.

Bharpur Kaur Vs Karamjit Singh and Others — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2560 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 2560 of 2012 Date of decision : September 06, 2013

Bharpur Kaur

....Petitioner

versus

Karamjit Singh and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. AS Barnala, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶13

Plaintiff Bharpur Kaur, aggrieved by order dated 29.2.2012 Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing application of plaintiff for police held for compliance with interim injunction order dated 21.10.2011 Annexure P/2 upheld in appeal vide judgment 17.12.2011 Annexure P/3, has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said order Annexure P/5.

¶14

Vide order Annexure P/2, the trial court allowed application of plaintiff/petitioner for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants

¶15

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.09 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶16

Civil Revision No. 2560 of 2012

¶17

-2-

¶18

from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Appeal against said order preferred by the defendants stands dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment Annexure P/3. The plaintiff thereafter filed application alleging that inspite of aforesaid injunction order, the defendants were interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and were ought to destroy the plaintiff's crop in violation of the aforesaid orders and therefore, police help is required.

¶19

Defendants by filing the reply Annexure P/4 to the application controverted the averments made in the application and pleaded that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and in fact the plaintiff herself wants to take possession of the suit land from the defendants under the garb of the aforesaid orders.

¶20

Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/5 has dismissed application of the plaintiff for grant of police help. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

¶21

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file whereas none has appeared for the respondents inspite of service and adjournments.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that police help is required to be granted to implement temporary injunction order Annexure P/2 as

¶23

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.09 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶24

Civil Revision No. 2560 of 2012

¶25

-3-

¶26

upheld in appeal vide judgment Annexure P/3. There is considerable merit in the contention. Even the trial court has observed in the impugned order that the defendants are required to comply with the aforesaid orders and they cannot be allowed to interfere in any manner with the possession of the plaintiff. Inspite thereof, the trial court has dismissed the plaintiff's application for police help on the ground that vide calendra dated 6.12.2011, on account of scuffle between the parties, the defendants were arrested under sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.). However, this approach of the trial court is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Filing of the said calendra and arrest of the defendants under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. rather strengthens the case of the plaintiff for grant of police help because it depicts that the defendants did try to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in violation of the temporary injunction order.

¶27

In addition to it, the defendants in their reply Annexure P/4 have even denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and have pleaded that the plaintiff wants to take possession of the suit land from the defendants. In other words, the defendants have asserted their own possession over the suit land which would prima facie depict violation of injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff, necessitating grant of police help as sought for by the plaintiff.

¶28

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.09 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

¶29

Civil Revision No. 2560 of 2012

¶30

-4-

¶31

Resultantly, I find that the impugned order passed by the trial court suffers from perversity, illegality and jurisdictional error. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court is set aside. Application filed by the plaintiffpetitioner for grant of police help for implementing injunction order dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure P/2) is allowed. Trial court is directed to grant requisite police help to the plaintiff in accordance with law for complying with temporary injunction order Annexure P/2.

¶32

( L.N. Mittal ) September 06, 2013 Judge 'dalbir'

¶33

Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.09 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh

Bharpur Kaur v. Karamjit Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharpur Kaur v. Karamjit Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Siri Ram and Ors. Vs Hardev Singh and Ors.

Gun Devi & Anr. Vs Mayawati & Ors.

Punjab Wakf Board Ambala Cantt. Vs Iqbal Chand & Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagmel Singh and Ors. Vs Waryam Singh and Ors.

Ravi Dass Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Ludhiana Vs Naib Singh