IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

CR-2922-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 09.12.2025 Umed Singh and others ... Petitioners Versus Pardeep Kumar ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Munish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr.Punyaveer, Advocate for the respondent.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Hisar, vide which the application filed by the petitioners for providing police help for removing pillars from the passage in question and for complying with the injunction order dated 31.05.2023, has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent (defendant) from demolishing, blocking, encroaching, making any hindrance in the passage of 2 karam which is existing on the southern doll of khasra no.6/21, 22, 23, 24/1, 24/2, 25 and northern doll of sanctioned drain comprised in khewat no.8 and 2 as per jamabandi for the year 2021-22 situated at village Hindwan Tehsil and District, Hisar which is running at the spot since 07.03.1961. It is submitted that along with the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed by the petitioners which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 12.05.2023 and that against the order dated 12.05.2023, the petitioners had filed an appeal and the said appeal was allowed by the Ist Appellate Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 and a positive injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners. It is argued that against the said order, a revision petition i.e., CR-5715-2023 was filed by the respondent herein and the said revision petition was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024.

3. It is submitted that in spite of the fact that the petitioners have a positive injunction in their favour, the respondent has violated the same and erected pillars and also left water in the passage in question and damaged the same on the night of 09/10.06.2023 and thus, the petitioners were forced to file an application for providing police help for removing the pillars from the passage in question. It is further fairly submitted that the petitioners had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC which is still pending for adjudication. It is argued that instead of allowing the application and enforcing the injunction in favour of the petitioners, the trial Court vide order dated 04.04.2025 had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for providing police help. It is submitted that the said order is against settled law. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in the case of Ishwar and others vs. Asha Ram and others reported as 2015(3) PLR 578 and in the case of Ashish Munjal vs. Ashok Kumar and another reported as 2020(4) RCR (Civil) 544. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application be allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 which has been passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners for providing police help has been rightly passed and deserves to be upheld. It is submitted that the petitioners have already filed a contempt petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and thus allowing the present application for providing police help would be pre judging the said application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and would prejudice the right