The court affirmed that police assistance is not warranted for vague status quo orders pending substantive determinations.

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby the application moved by the petitioners–defendants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking police help for implementation of the order of status quo dated 07.03.2018 was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law and has been passed in complete disregard of the spirit and object underlying the order dated 07.03.2018. It is submitted that the learned trial Court, while passing the order of dismissal, failed to appreciate that the purpose of a status quo order is to maintain the existing condition of the property till the adjudication of rights between the parties, and that such an order can be rendered meaningless if it is allowed to be violated with impunity. Counsel urges that the respondent–plaintiff, in open defiance of the order dated 07.03.2018, TRIPTI SAINI has started raising construction on the suit property and is attempting to change its very nature and character, thereby causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioners.

3. It is argued that though the petitioners have already taken recourse to the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC, the said provision is penal in nature and does not, by itself, ensure preservation of the property in its existing condition. To effectively implement the order of status quo and to prevent further illegal acts, it was imperative for the trial Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC and to direct the local police to assist in maintaining the order. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Mahipal and others v. Jain Singh and others , 1999 (2) PLR 741, wherein it was held that the civil Court is empowered to grant police aid for the enforcement of an injunction order, and that such exercise of power under Section 151 CPC does not stand excluded by the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC.

4. Since the short controversy is involved in the present revision petition, no notice is required to be issued to the respondent.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record.

6. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the order of status quo dated 07.03.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, was an interim arrangement made at a stage when the question of possession of the suit property had not yet been determined. The learned trial Court had clearly recorded that the identity and possession of the passage and dry pond could not be ascertained at that stage and that the matter was to be decided only after the parties TRIPTI SAINI led their respective evidence. In such a situation, the order of status quo was essentially a protective and neutral order, not conferring possession on any particular party nor restraining the one already in occupation.

7. The learned trial Court, while dismissing the application for police assistance, has relied upon the judgment in Jagge Ram v. Hari Singh , 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 274 (P&H), holding that where the question of possession is in a fluid stage and has not yet been adjudicated upon, the appropriate remedy for any alleged violation of a status quo order is by way of an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC, and that a separate direction for police help cannot ordinarily be issued in such a situation. The trial Court also rightly observed that the petitioners have already invoked the said provision and the same is pending consideration.

8. This Court finds no error in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. The power under Section 151 CPC is indeed inherent and can be invoked to effectuate the ends of justice, but such