Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ALAMGIR versus HAKAM ALI & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Alamgir v. Hakam Ali & Ors - CR-6059-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 5024 (31 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

C.R.No.6059 of 2004 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION: 11.8.2006

Alamgir .....Petitioner.

through

Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate

vs.

Hakam Ali and others .....Respondents.

through

Mr.Maharaj Kumar, Advocate

***

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
***

SURYA KANT, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.10.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Karnal whereby an application moved by the petitioner-plaintiff to provide police help to protect the petitioner's possession over the subject land, has been dismissed.

As it appears from the impugned order, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he is in possession of the subject land and order granting ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner on 22.9.2001. The respondent-defendants preferred an appeal against the said order which was, however, dismissed by the First Appellate Court. The injunction order is, thus, operative in favour of the petitioner.

Alleging that the respondents are anti-social elements and in collusion with the revenue staff wanted to dispossess the petitioner, therefore the petitioner moved the present application. The trial Court has, however, dismissed the application on the ground that the allegations are vague and general in nature and no specific instance of alleged attempt made by the respondents to take forcible possession of the land, was disclosed. Similarly, the mode of police help is also not mentioned in the application.

Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

After perusing the impugned order and having regard to the fact that there is an ad interim injunction order in favour of the petitioner, this revision petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, if any attempt is made by the respondents or any one else to disobey the ad interim injunction order.

Needless to say that if the trial Court is satisfied that the respondents or any one else has breached the injunction order, apart from a suitable action under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, the trial Court will ensure that majesty of law is upheld and possession of a party before it is protected, even by issuing appropriate directions to the police authorities.

With these observations/liberty and directions, this revision petition is disposed of.

August 11, 2006 ( SURYA KANT )

poonam JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.