JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT REVISION PETITION:-

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure P-15) passed in Civil Suit No.CS/1383/2024 titled as “Jagdish Chander Vs. Mamta” by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar (Haryana) whereby application (Annexure P-11) moved by the respondent for seeking police assistance has been allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has been in possession of the house in question since the date of her marriage with the son of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court while granting injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiff has not duly taken the said fact into consideration. It is further submitted that the petitioner has challenged the said order of the trial Court as well as of the Appellate Court by filing CR- 5006-2025 in which notice of motion has been issued. It is further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent had filed an application for providing police help and the trial Court has granted police help without giving any affirmative finding that the petitioner has violated the order of injunction. It is submitted that since the petitioner has been in possession of the property prior to the grant of the said injunction thus, the petitioner cannot be stated to have violated the injunction order. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Vs. Mridu Nagpal and another reported as 2009(4) PLR 554. It is submitted that the said order be set aside and the application filed by respondent-plaintiff for providing police help be dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial Court, after considering all the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties, had granted positive injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and had even dismissed the injunction filed by the petitioner, along with the counter claim. It is submitted that it was specifically held by the trial Court that the petitioner is not in possession of the premises in question and that even appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed and thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to argue that the petitioner was in possession of the premises prior to the passing of the injunction order. It is further submitted that there is no stay order granted in favour of the petitioner in Civil Revision No.5006 of 2025 filed by the petitioner and thus, the order of injunction is operative. It is further argued that in the application for seeking police help, specific averments and the details of the dates have been mentioned, on which date, the petitioner along with other relatives had trespassed into the house in question after breaking open the lock and in spite of the injunction order in favour of respondent having been shown, they refused to comply with the said order. It is argued that the fact that in spite of the said injunction order, the petitioner has raised a plea that she is in possession of the premises, clearly shows that the act and conduct of the petitioner is in violation of the said injunction order. It is submitted that the order passed by the trial Court granting police help is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. It is further argued that it is the duty of the Court to implement its order and in case police help is not granted then in spite of there being a specific injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, the respondent-plaintiff would not be able to enjoy the benefit of it.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and finds that the impug