The court affirmed that police assistance for enforcing a decree requires proof of willful disobedience, and acknowledged the shared rights of co-sharers impacting enforcement viability.

JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. These are two revision petitions filed by the petitioner to assail the order dated 23.11.2020 passed by learned Executing Court, whereby, an application for seeking police help was dismissed and issues were framed, vis-a-vis, objections filed by the respondents.

2. The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-

3. That, the petitioner (plaintiff before learned trial Court) had filed a civil suit No.298 of 1996, thereby, seeking issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants (i.e. Beni Prashad and Bishambar), in any manner, whatsoever, in the peaceful cultivating possession of the petitioner-plaintiff over the land measuring 22 Kanal 8 Marla, bearing Khewat/Khatauni No.175 Min/380, Khasra No.25//9/2, 12/2 and Khewat/Khatauni No.183, Min/402 bearing Khasra No.76//14, situated in the revenue estate of village Khadri, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar. In the said suit, the petitioner-plaintiff asserted himself to be in occupation of the property in question as tenant for the last 15 years and that he had been paying batai regularly to the defendants. The defendants without having any interest, are threatening to dispossess him from the suit property, forcibly and illegally.

4. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.01.2005, copy whereof is Annexure P-1. However, the appeal bearing No.13 of 2005 was filed by Beni Prashad and Bishambar and the appellate Court, on the basis of the evidence, concluded about Gian Chand (plaintiff) to be in possession of the land, comprised of Rect. No.25 Killas No.9/2 and 12/2, as a tenant and that he is in possession of the suit land comprised of Rect. No.76 Killa No.14, as a son of one of the co-sharers. Considering his possession to be lawful possession, he was held to be entitled to protect his possession against forcible dispossession by the defendants and with this modification, the appeal was dismissed, vide judgment dated 05.02.2007, copy whereof is Annexure P-2.

5. Thereupon, in August 2020, Gian Chand filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 CPC, for seeking enforcement of the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2005, by way of attachment of the property of the JD and the detention of the JD in civil prison. During the pendency of the said petition, an application was filed for police help for enforcement of the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2005. It was claimed in the application that the petitioner had sown/planted sugarcane in Khasra No.25//9/2, measuring 7 Kanal 4 Marla and in Khasra No.12/2, measuring 7 Kanal 4 Marla, after cutting of the wheat crop in the month of April 2020 and some popular trees are also planted. He had also sown the crop of jeeri in Khasra No.76//14 measuring 8 Kanal, which was sown in the month of June 2020.

6. Further, it was claimed that on 26.07.2020, when the petitioner- plaintiff along with his sons, had gone to the suit land for spray of fertilizers, thereupon, the respondents had made an attempt to dispossess them and forcibly takeover the possession of the suit land and they had also extended threats to interfere in his peaceful possession. Also, it was claimed that the petitioner had filed an application before the police authorities on 27.07.2020, but no action was initiated against the respondents and the respondents have been threatening, again and again, the decree holder for dire consequences. On this account, police help was prayed to be given to the petitioner/decree holder to enforce the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2005.

7. Reply to the same was filed, wherein, the res