Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 541
2011 (5) RCR(Civ) 684
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
Davinder Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
Ashok Kumar and others - Respondents
C.R. No. 988 of 2011 (O&M)
Decided on: February 11, 2011
Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
The powers of the Commissioner of Police are equivalent to those of the Senior Superintendent of Police for the purpose of executing warrants of possession.
Headnote:
warrant of possession - police assistance - Order 21 Rule 31 CPC, High Court Rules and Orders Volume IV Chapter 7 Part ‘J’ - Rule 2 of Part J, letter dated August 6, 1992, letter No.613 Spl.XI.Y.16.Rules.16
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a decree-holder, sought police protection for executing warrants of possession. The District and Sessions Judge deferred execution pending amendment of rules due to the appointment of a Commissioner of Police in place of the Senior Superintendent of Police.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the District and Sessions Judge to proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with the existing rules and letters dated August 6, 1992 and September 17, 1998, emphasizing that the powers of the Commissioner of Police are equivalent to those of the Senior Superintendent of Police.
Issues: Delay in execution due to the appointment of a Commissioner of Police and the absence of the Senior Superintendent of Police.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the powers of the Commissioner of Police are equivalent to those of the Senior Superintendent of Police and directed the District and Sessions Judge to proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with the existing rules and letters.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the case and ordered the communication of the decision to the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) - The petitioner is a decree-holder entitled to the possession on the basis of warrant of possession which is required to be executed with police help as per Order 21 Rule 31 CPC.
2. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the District Judge, Ludhiana to take effective steps for the grant of police protection from Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, for executing the warrants of possession in execution Petition No.83 of April 19, 1994 titled Devinder Kumar and another Vs. Harbans Lal and others, pending in the court of Sh.Jarnail Singh, Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ludhiana, fixed for February 24, 2011.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the High Court Rules and Orders Volume IV Chapter 7 Part ‘J’ deals with police assistance which reads as follows:-
“Police Assistance:- 1. The Punjab Government has decided that the following conditions should govern the rendering of Police assistance to the Civil Courts in the execution of warrants of arrest and distress or of warrants for the delivery of possession of immoveable property.
2. When request may be made for Police assistance-A Subordinate Judge may move the District Judge, or in his absence from the district, the Senior Subordinate Judge to ask the District Magistrate for Police assistance. The request must be accompanied by evidence of the circumstances sufficient to satisfy the District Magistrate that there is a design to commit a cognizable offence or that there is a likelihood of the commission of a cognizable offence by the person or persons on whom a warrant of arrest or distress or for the possession of immoveable property is to be served.
3. Government should be informed when Police assistance permitted. In all cases in which the District Magistrate has given permission for the employment of Police for the assistance of the Civil Courts in the execution of warrants, a report of the circumstances
should be submitted by him through the Commissioner to the State Government.”
4. It has further been submitted that vide letter of August 6, 1992 issued by Department of Home Affairs and Justice (Judicial Branch) addressed to the Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the matters of police assistance to Civil Courts in the execution of Decrees, the District and Sessions Judge was permitted to seek police assistance directly from the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned for execution of decrees or for any other like purpose under intimation to the District Magistrate concerned. Sequel to the said letter, Registrar of Punjab and Haryana High Court had issued instructions vide letter No.613 spl.XI.Y.16.Rulues.16 dated September 17, 1998 addressed to all the District and Sessions Judges of Punjab as follows:-
“I am directed to refer you on the subject noted above and to invite your attention to this court’s circular letter NO.21668-Rules/XI.Y.16 dated 10.9.1992 vide which a copy of memo No.18/19/91-1 Judl./4013 dated 6.8.1992 received from the Government of Punjab, Deptt. of Home Affairs and Justice (Judicial) was circulated. In this letter, it has been conveyed that it had been decided by the State Govt. that henceforth the District and Sessions Judges may seek police assistance directly from the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned for the execution of decrees or any other like purpose under intimation to the District Magistrate concerned. I am again to circulate this letter for your information and necessary compliance.”
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of Commissioner of Police having been appointed in the District of Ludhiana, the post of Senior Superintendent of Police, is no more in existence, therefore, a request was made by District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to the Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court vide his letters annexures P-2 and P-3 for necessary correction in the Rules.
6. As the reply from the High Court is awaited and the matter is under cons
