SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Cal) 486

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Subhasis Dasgupta, J.
Gouri Das & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Nani Bhattacharjee & Others – Respondents
CO. No. 1213 of 2018
Decided On : 09-07-2020

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Tarak Nath Halder, Sagnik Chaterjee, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Partha Pratim Roy, Dyutiman Banerjee, Neil Basu, Advocates.

The application of Section 151 C.P.C. for police help requires the presence of tangible materials indicative of violation or disobedience to the injunction order.

Headnote:

Police Help - Injunction Order - Section 151 C.P.C., 2010 (2) CLJ (Cal) 140, 2010 (2) CLJ (Cal) 110, AIR 1986 Calcutta 220 - The court discussed the application of Section 151 C.P.C. and the need for tangible materials indicative of violation or disobedience to the injunction order before granting police help.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought police help for the implementation of an injunction order after the opposite parties gathered construction materials in violation of the order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to provide tangible materials indicative of violation or disobedience to the injunction order, and thus, the prayer for police help was rejected.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing the prayer for police help without tangible materials indicative of violation or disobedience to the injunction order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application of Section 151 C.P.C. for police help requires the presence of tangible materials indicative of violation or disobedience to the injunction order.

Final Decision: The court upheld the decision of the Trial Court and rejected the revisonal application for police help.

JUDGMENT :

1. The impugned order dated 17th November, 2017, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 281 of 2008, declining to pass any order for police help for implementation of order of injunction, is subject of challenge in this revisional application under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in connection with suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of possession, petitioner was favoured with ad interim order of injunction initially. The temporary injunction application was ultimately disposed of on 19th May, 2017, restraining the opposite parties/defendants from encroaching upon the schedule property, and taking out any construction thereof till disposal of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, a prayer for recovery of possession was additionally made on 11th March, 2011. The opposite parties without preferring any appeal against the order of injunction presumably accepted the injunction order, and even after accepting injunction order, for the reasons best known to opposite parties, they gathered construction materials in the suit property in their attempt to make illegal construction in the suit property in violation of the injunction order. Such fact was brought to the notice of Beliaghata P.S. by lodging G.D. entry no. 2808, dated 28.10.2017. Since no action was taken by the police even after lodging G.D. entry for that purpose, petitioner filed an application seeking police help.

3. The opposite parties filed objection against the prayer for police help denying alleged violation of the injunction order. The alleged act of gathering materials for construction in the suit property together with an attempt to take out illegal construction in the suit property, was specifically denied in Para-6 of the written objection filed by the opposite parties.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that learned court below had most illegally rejected the prayer for police help without having understood the real purport of the prayer made under Section 151 C.P.C. for police help. Learned advocate further submitted that since no immediate relief could be obtained by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2(A) C.P.C., the petitioner was very much within his power to seek police help for the implementation of the order of injunction.

5. Reliance was accordingly placed by learned advocate for the petitioner on decisions reported in 2010 (2) CLJ (Cal) 140, delivered in the case of Saila Roy & Ors. Vs. Shib Sankar Ghosh @ Ata & Ors., and decision reported in 2010 (2) CLJ (Cal) 110, delivered in the case of Sri Paresh Chandra Das Vs. Sri Bikash Kumar Das & Ors., wherein it was held that court can order police protection for the implementation of the order of injunction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Drawing attention to Para-7 of decision reported in Sri Paresh Chandra Das (Supra), it was contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that when opposite parties tried to raise construction gathering materials over the suit property, and if opposite parties were not checked to raise construction in the suit property in violation of injunction order, then there would be definite change of character and nature of the suit property, which the court should not allow it to happen.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted relying upon a decision reported in AIR 1986 Calcutta 220, delivered in the case of Sujit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun & Ors. that no technicality would prevent the court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent power. It was proposed that Order 39 Rule 2(A) C.P.C. having laid down a punitive measure for purpose of compelling a party to comply with the order of injunction, the same would not be suffice for the immediate relief, which could be easily extended taking aid of Section 151 C.P.C. by granting police help for the implementation of injunction order.

8.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top