Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rattani Devi & Another vs Sita Devi & Another on 6 March, 2026
( 2026:HHC:6556 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 501 of 2025
Date of Decision: 06.03.2026
.
Rattani Devi & another ...Petitioners.
Versus
Sita Devi & another ...Respondents.
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
rt
For the petitioners: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja,
Advocate.
__________________________________________________
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)
The present petition arises out of the order
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ghumarwin,
District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 22.07.2025, whereby
application filed by the respondents/defendants under
Section 151 of CPC for police assistance and for
implementing the order dated 02.04.2025, passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District
Bilaspur, H.P. was allowed.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
2 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
2. Brief facts of the case are that the present
petitioners Rattani Devi and Manoj Kumar filed a suit under
.
Sections 36, 37 and 38 of Specific Relief Act for declaration
to the effect that the exchange deed executed between
plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 on 04.09.2020 registered
in the office of Sub-Registrar Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur,
of
H.P. dated 04.09.2020 with respect to the land measuring
11-7 bighas situated in Village Bakroa, P.O.Bhager,
rt
Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur , H.P. is a
result of fraud and misrepresentation exercised by
respondents/defendants upon petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2.
Therefore, it was prayed that the exchange deed is null and
void and be declared as no-nest which does not have any
effect on the right, title and interest of the parties.
3. It was further prayed that decree for declaration
that mutation No. 538 attested on 17.10.2020 may also be
declared as illegal and void which has been attested by
A.C. IInd Grade Ghumarwin at the back of the petitioners/
plaintiffs. Further a decree in alternative to the effect that if
petitioners/ plaintiffs fail to prove themselves to be exclusive
owners of the suit land or the exchange deed dated
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
3 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
04.09.2020 is held to be valid, even then the respondent
No.1/defendant No.1 with the help of respondents/
.
defendants No. 2 to 8 have got no right, title and interest to
raise construction of house or road over any specific and
valuable portion of the suit land, until the suit land is finally
partitioned.
of
4. Alongwith the suit, the present petitioners filed an
application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with
rt
Section 151 of CPC for restraining the respondents from
digging the land, raising construction or constructing road
over any specific and valuable portion of the land
measuring 9-9 Bighas comprised in Khasra No. 284/129/34
and land measuring 1-18 bighas comprised in Khasra No.
55, Khata/Khatoni No. 61/74 situated in Village Bakroa,
Hadbast No. 464, P.O. Bhager, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil
Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. until the suit land is finally
partitioned.
5. On 30.12.2021, in the application, which was
filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the learned Civil
Judge, Court No.3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.
passed the orders restraining the respondent from digging
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
4 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
or raising construction or constructing road or causing any
type of interference over the suit land till further orders.
.
6. The respondents/defendants contested the suit
filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs by filing written statement,
whereby all the allegations levelled in the plaint have been
refuted and it has been averred that the suit filed by the
of
plaintiffs is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be
dismissed. All the allegations as levelled in the plaint were
rt
refuted and the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.
7. Learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Ghumarwin,
District Bilaspur, H.P. allowed the application under Order
39 rule 1 & 2 CPC which was filed by the
plaintiffs/petitioners and the respondents were restrained
from, causing interference, changing the nature, raising
construction or alienating the suit land till the final disposal
of the main suit.
8. The present respondents/defendants filed an
appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin,
District Bilaspur, H.P. on 14.09.2022 under Order 43 Rule
(1) (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned
First Appellate Court vide its order dated 02.04.2025 partly
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
5 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
allowed the appeal filed by the present respondents/
defendants and the parties were directed to maintain status
.
quo qua the nature, character and possession of the road
existing over the suit land measuring 9.9 bighas, comprised
in Khasra No. 284/129/34, and land measuring 1-18
Bishwas, Khasra No. 55, Khata/Khatoni No. 61/74
of
measuring 0-6 bighas, situated in Village Bakroa, Hadbast
No. 464, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur,
rt
H.P. till the final disposal of the suit.
9. After passing of the order by the learned
Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, the defendants/
respondents Sita Devi and Ved Prakash filed an application
under Section 151 of CPC for the grant of Police Assistance
and seeking implementation of the order dated 2.4.2025 as
passed by the learned First Appellate Court, Ghumarwin,
District Bilaspur, H.P. It was averred in the application that
the present respondents are senior citizens and both are old
persons. The respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is bed ridden
who has recently been discharged from IGMC, Shimla. The
link road is being used for ingress and egress from main
road to the house and the present petitioners by taking
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
6 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
undue advantage of the aforesaid circumstances are
causing interference in the use of the road and quarreling
.
with the applicants. The applicants are apprehending that
the respondents/petitioners may cause grievous injury while
using the said road by the applicants, hence the interference
by the present petitioners over the aforesaid link road
of
deserves to be stopped through police of P.S. Ghumarwin
and the order dated 02.04.2025 may kindly be implemented
rt
It has further been submitted in the application that
respondent No.1 is unable to walk and she remains bed
ridden hence ambulance/vehicle facility is required in order
to lift the said respondent from the house. Further, it has
been averred that the present respondents are unable to
resist the illegal acts of the present petitioners. Hence, rights
of the said respondents are required to be protected with the
assistance of the police.
10. The present petitioners/plaintiffs filed a reply to
the application for the police assistance and all the
allegations as levelled in the application were refuted and
they prayed for dismissal of the application.
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
7 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
11. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Ghumarwin, District
Bilaspur, H.P. vide its order dated 22.07.2025 allowed the
.
application as filed by the respondents/defendants and
SHO of Police Station Ghumarwin, was directed to visit the
spot and get the order dated 02.04.2025 implemented on
the spot and to remove the blockage/ obstruction caused by
of
the respondents/petitioners on the said road.
12. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiffs/petitioners have
rt
approached this Court challenging the order dated
22.07.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge,
Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.
13. I have heard Mr. N.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the
petitioners and Mr. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Advocate, for
the respondents.
14. The case file reveals that the petitioners/plaintiffs
have instituted a suit for declaration before the learned trial
Court , whereby the exchange deed has been challenged on
the ground of fraud and mis-representation and further
declaration has also been sought that mutation No. 538
attested on 17.10.2020 is illegal, null and void and the same
has been attested by AC Iind Grade, Ghumarwin, District
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
8 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
Bilaspur, H.P. at the back of the petitioner No1/plaintiff No.1.
Further decree for permanent prohibitory injunction has also
.
been sought by the plaintiffs/petitioners.
15. Learned Civil Judge, Court No. 3, Ghumarwin,
District Bilaspur, H.P on 22.07.2022 in the application, which
was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1
of
and 2 CPC accepted the prayer of the plaintiffs/ petitioners,
restraining the rtpresent respondents/defendants from
causing interference, changing the nature, raising
construction or alienating the suit land till the final disposal
of the main suit.
16. The said order dated 22.07.2022 passed by
learned trial Court was assailed by the present
respondents/ defendants before the learned First Appellate
Court, who modified the order and directed the present
petitioners/ defendants to maintain status quo, qua nature,
character and possession of the road existing over the suit
land till final disposal of the suit.
17. The respondents/defendants has filed an
application, whereby they have submitted that both the
respondents are senior citizens and they are using the link
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
9 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
road for the ingress and egress from main road to their
house and the respondents/petitioners are taking undue
.
advantage of the old age of the present respondents and
they are causing interference in the use of the road. It has
been categorically submitted that respondent No.1 is an old
lady and she remains bed ridden . Therefore, she requires
of
the ambulance facility in order to have lift from her house.
18. The application has been filed disclosing the
rt
violation and defiance of the order as passed by the learned
First Appellate Court and it has been categorically stated
that the present petitioners/ plaintiffs are causing
interference in the use of the road and quarreling with the
present respondents. Even the police report, which has
been placed on record by the present petitioner reveals that
there is an interference on the part of the present
petitioners/plaintiffs with respect to the usage of the road on
behalf of the present respondents/ defendants.
19. This Court primarily is of the opinion that once
there is an interim protection granted by the First Appellate
Court, whereby both the parties have been directed to
maintain status quo qua the nature, character and
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
10 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
possession of the road existing on the suit land, in that
event, the plaintiffs / petitioners have got no right to violate
.
the said order by defying/ disobeying the same.
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that
an interim protection order passed by the competent Court
has to be implemented in its letter and spirit and no one can
of
be permitted to violate the same. The majesty of the Court
orders has to be upheld. The present respondents/
rt
defendants, who are senior citizens, cannot be harassed
and the petitioners/ plaintiffs cannot be permitted to create
nuisance that too in the light of the interim order passed by
learned First Appellate Court. On account of the defiance as
made by the petitioners/plaintiffs, the respondents/
defendants were compelled to approach the Court for the
interim protection of the order and for the grant of the police
Assistance.
21. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that no obstruction has been caused in
the case in hand and all the allegations as levelled are
incorrect. Since no obstruction has been caused by the
petitioner there cannot be any occasion for them to oppose
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
11 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
the prayer made by the respondent for providing police
assistance for the enforcement of the order of status quo
.
which is only to visit the spot to ensure compliance of the
court order.
22. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO
No. 166 of 2021, titled Sanjay Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar &
of
others, decided on 13.07.2023, has held as under:-
“7. This Court in Jaishi Ram and others Vs. Salig
rt
Ram, 1981 Sim. L.C. 156 has held that if the
circumstances of a case are such that assistance
of police for the enforcement of an order isnecessary, an order to this effect can be passed.
The learned Single Judge has held as under:
“3. I have perused the order passed by the
Sub-Judge. He has based his judgment on
a decision in Ravapati Audemma V.
Pothineni Narasimham, AIR 1971 A.P. 53.
This is a Division Bench judgment of that
High Court. In the said judgment the point
involved was the same as in the presencecase. The learned Judges have discussed
the case-law on the point. They have not
agreed with certain prior decisions. Therelevant observations may be reproduced:
“The observations in the aforesaid
decision no doubt support the
contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The learned Judge Bhima
Sankaram, J., referred to Section 151,
C.P.C. but took the view that because
an order of injunction is capable of
enforcement by punishing its
disobedience in the manner provided by
Order 39 Rule 2(3), C.P.C., it is not
open to the Civil Courts to enforce the::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
12 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )same with the aid of the police. With
great respect we are unable to agree
with this reasoning. It has to be noticed
that Order 30, Rule 2(3), CPC., provides.
only for punishment by attachment of
the property or by detention in civil
prison of the person who committed
breach. But it does not further providefor implementation of the order of
injunction itself. Order 39, Rule 2(3)
cannot be said to be an express
provision with respect to implementationof
of the order of injunction, but is only a
provision which provides penalty for
disobedience of the order. In such a
case there being no other express
rt
provisions in the Code for enforcement
of the order, it is not only proper but also
necessary that the courts should renderall aid to the aggrieved party to derive
full benefits of the order. Though the
order of injunction under Order 39,
C.P.C. is only interim in nature, still itclothes the person who obtained the
order with certain rights and he is
entitled to enforce the aforesaid right
against the party who is bound by theorder. No doubt in such a case, the
aggrieved party himself could approachthe police authorities to prevent
obstruction to the enforcement of the
order or to the exercise of the rightwhich he derives under the order or to
the exercise of such right which he
derives under the order of Court. But we
do not see why when the same person
brings to the notice of the Court that
enforcement of the order is sought to be
prevented or obstructed, the Court
should not exercise its inherent power
under Section 151, C.P.C. and direct the
police authorities to render all aid to the
aggrieved party in the implementation of
the Court’s order. In our opinion the
exercise of such power is necessary for::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
13 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )the ends of justice or to prevent abuse
of the process and the civil court has
ample jurisdiction to pass such order
under Section 151, C.P.C. The learned.
Judge’s observation “that the police are
not bound to obey and directions of the
court in the absence of any statutory
obligation to do so and a civil courtwould be stultifying itself by giving
directions which may not be complied
with”, with great respect, cannot be said
to be correct. Inasmuch as we are of theof
opinion that such a direction to be police
authorities could be given under the
inherent powers of the Court under
Section 151, C.P.C. the police are
rt
bound to obey such directions.”
The learned Judges have also referred to some
decisions on the point, including the observations
in Padam Sen Vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1961 SC
218). It is desirable to reproduce the same:
“The following observations in AIR 1961 e
also apposite in this context: ”
The inherent powers of the Court are in
addition to the powers specifically conferred
on the Court by the Code. They are
complementary to those powers and
therefore it must be held that the Court is
free to exercise them for the purpose
mentioned in Sec. 151 of the Code when
the exercise of those powers is not in any
way in conflict with what has been
expressly provided in the Code or against
the intentions of the Legislature.’ In view of
these clear observations of their Lordships
with regard to the scope and ambit of the
inherent powers of the Court under Section
151, C.P.C., we are clearly of the opinion
that in order to do justice between the
parties or to prevent the abuse of process
of the Court, the Civil courts have ample
jurisdiction to give directions to the police
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
14 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
authorities to render aid to the aggrieved
parties with regard to the implementation of
the orders of Court or the exercise of the
rights created under orders of Court. That
.
the police authorities owe a legal duty to the
public to enforce the law is clear from a
decision of the Court of Appeal, reported in
R.V. Metropolitan Police Commr., (1968) 1
All DR 763, where Lord Denning, M.R.
observed at page 769 as follows: “I hold it
to be the duty of the Commissioner of
Police, as it is of every chief constable to
of
enforce the law of the land…..but in all
these things he is not the servant of
anyone, save of the law itself. The
responsibility for law enforcement lies on
rt
him. He is answerable to the law and to the
law alone.”
The same view was expressed by the other
learned Judges. We may also refer to the
judgment of the Madras High Court, in
Varadachariar V. Commr. Of Police (1969)
2 Mad. LJ 1, where the learned Judge,
Kailasam, J., after referring to the English
case cited above held that the
Commissioner of Police should proceed
and act in accordance with the directions
indicated in the aforesaid judgment.”
8. In P. Shanker Rao v. Smt. B. Susheela, AIR
2000 Andhra Pradesh 214, learned Single Judge
of Andhra Pradesh has held that the court in its
inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure can grant police aid to ensure
effective implementation of temporary injunction
pending suit for perpetual injunction and
procedure under order 39 rule 2-A of the Code of
Civil Procedure need not be followed. Learned
Single Judge has held as under:
“[3] The observations, in my considered
view should be confined to the facts of that
particular case. In that case, the defendant
sought police protection on the ground that
the plaintiff was interfering with his::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
15 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )possession despite the fact that the
temporary injunction granted earlier in
favour of the plaintiff was vacated. Thus, it
is not a case where the order to extend.
police aid was granted in order to ensure
compliance with an order of injunction in
force pending the suit. The mere fact that
the action could be taken against eitherparty for flouting the injunction under Order
XXXIX Rule 2-A or under the Contempt of
Courts Act does not come in the way of the
Court taking all necessary steps forof
ensuring obedience of the injunction order.
The Court need not wait till the injunction is
breached. In a fit case, the Court can
undoubtedly direct police aid as a
rt
preventive measure. This power though not
expressly conferred, is a power incidental or
ancillary to the exercise of the power togrant injunction pending the suit. With great
respect, I am not in a position to record my
concurrence with the broad observations
made by the learned Judge that the civilCourt cannot direct police aid for execution
of its order – interlocutory or final and that
the party should only have recourse to the
procedure laid down under Order XXI, Rule32 or the Contempt of Courts Act. The
observations are in the nature of obiter andtherefore not binding on me. It is therefore
unnecessary to refer the matter to the
Division Bench, more so in view of thedecision of this Court relied upon by the trial
Court. I would however like to point out that
the police aid should not be granted for
mere asking. The Court has to be satisfied,
prima facie, that there is an imminent threat
of violation of interim order, if police does
not intervene and that there is no other way
of ensuring effective compliance. If however
an alternative could be found such as,
deploying an Officer of the Court to oversee
the implementation of the order, the Court
can avoid granting order for police aid.”
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
16 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
23. The scope of interference while adjudicating the
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
.
been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S
GARMENT CRAFT Vs. PRAKASH CHAND GOEL, (2022)
4 SCC 181, decided on 11.01.2024, wherein it has been
held that the High Court while exercising Supervisory
of
Jurisdiction will not act as a Court of First Appeal to re-
appreciate, reweigh the evidence on facts upon which the
rt
determination under challenge is based. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as follows:-
15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we
are clearly of the view that the impugned order is
contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several
reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited
jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court
exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as acourt of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the
evidence or facts upon which the determination under
challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not tocorrect every error of fact or even a legal flaw when
the final finding is justified or can be supported. The
High Court is not to substitute its own decision on
facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or
tribunal.1 The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature
of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave
dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse,1Celina Coelho
Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar
Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice. The power
under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in
appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at
all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
17 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )reasonable person can possibly come to such a
conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is
axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be
exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.
.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article
227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P)
Ltd.2 has observed:-
“6. The scope and ambit of exercise of
power and jurisdiction by a High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is examined and explained in aof
number of decisions of this Court. The
exercise of power under this article involves
a duty on the High Court to keep inferior
courts and tribunals within the bounds of
rt
their authority and to see that they do the
duty expected or required of them in a legal
manner. The High Court is not vested withany unlimited prerogative to correct all
kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made
within the limits of the jurisdiction of the
subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise ofthis power and interfering with the orders of
the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases
of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant
violation of fundamental principles of law orjustice, where if the High Court does not
interfere, a grave injustice remainsuncorrected. It is also well settled that the
High Court while acting under this article
cannot exercise its power as an appellatecourt or substitute its own judgment in place
of that of the subordinate court to correct an
error, which is not apparent on the face of
the record. The High Court can set aside or
ignore the findings of facts of an inferior
court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at
all to justify or the finding is so perverse,
that no reasonable person can possibly
come to such a conclusion, which the court
or tribunal has come to.”
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS
18 ( 2026:HHC:6556 )
24. In the opinion of this Court, learned trial Court
has rightly passed the order and has come to the rescue of
.
old aged person whereby, SHO Police Station Ghumarwin,
District Bilaspur, H.P. has been directed to visit the spot
and to get the order dated 22.04.2025 implemented on the
spot.
of
25. Learned Trial Court has rightly come to the
conclusion that it is a duty of the Court to get implemented
rt
its order in letter and spirit on the spot and no one can be
permitted to take law in their hands. Therefore, this Court
does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
All the pending miscellaneous application(s) if
any, shall also stands disposed off.
(Romesh Verma)
Judge
March 6, 2026
(Nisha)
::: Downloaded on – 11/03/2026 20:30:05 :::CIS