IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 92 of 2025 Decided on 17th July 2025 Shri Puran Singh …Petitioner Versus Shri Tara Dutt and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Digvijay, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. P.S. Governdhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that after setting aside the order dated 04.01.2025, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.1, Solan, H.P. in Case No.58/1 of 2024, titled as Tara Dutt and another versus Puran Singh, the application filed by the respondents for police assistance may kindly be ordered to be dismissed.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents herein have filed a suit for 2 permanent perpetual and prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from causing any sort of interference/obstruction in the free flow of path as is mentioned in the head note of the plaint. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiffs also preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. This application was allowed by the learned Trial Court in terms of Annexure P-3 that is order dated 21.08.2024 in the following terms:- “Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the present application is partly allowed and the parties are directed to maintain status-quo qua the usage of the path by the applicants existing over the ‘suit land’ till the final disposal of the suit. The observations made hereinbefore, shall remain confined to the disposal of the application and will have no bearing whatsoever with the merits of the case. The present application stands disposed of which after needful be tagged with the main file.” 3. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved by the fact that the order passed by the learned Trial Court was not being obeyed by the defendants, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking police assistance for the purpose of the implementation passed by the learned Trial Court. In this application filed under Section 151 of the CPC, learned Trial Court has passed an order on 3 04.01.2025, in terms whereof SHO Police Station Sadar, Solan, H.P., has been directed to render police assistance to the applicants for execution of order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/defendant has filed this petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the garb of the order of police assistance that has been obtained by the respondents, the respondents intend to open an iron gate, which was closed as on the date when the order was passed by the learned Trial Court, in the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, i.e. 31.08.2024. Learned Senior Counsel stated that the plaintiffs themselves now intends to flout the status quo order and this extremely important aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court while allowing the application seeking police assistance. Accordingly, he prays that as the order is perverse, the petition be allowed and the order be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that in terms of the averments contained in the plaint though the factum of the Iron Gate being 4 there on the spot was admitted even by the plaintiff, but it is not as if the same was locked as it being stated by the petitioner. He stated that as the learned Trial Court was with the plaintiff that the defendant was not allowing ingress and egress to the plaintiffs through this gate that the order of status quo was passed. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that as said order passed by the learned trial Court was not being implemented by the defendant, it is in the said circumstances that the application filed by the plaintiff seeking police assistance was allowed. Accordingly, he prayed that as there is no merit in the petition, the same be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the orders passed by learned Trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, dated 31.08.2024 as well as the order passed by the learned Appellate Court dated 04.01.2025, which is impugned before this Court. 7. It is evident from the order that was passed by the Court on 31.08.2024 that the learned Trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the usage of the path by the applicants existing over the suit land till the final disposal of the 5 suit. Whereas, the contention of the plaintiff before this Court is that the Iron Gate was not locked and on the strength of the interim order passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff has a right to have egressed through the gate, for which, police assistance stands granted by the learned Trial Court, according to the defendant status quo means status quo and as the Iron Gate was locked as on the date when the order was passed, therefore, the intent of seeking police assistant is to undo the status quo. Thus, as the primary issue is as to whether as on the date when the status quo order was passed by the learned Trial Court, the Iron Gate was locked or not, this Court is of the considered view that it is not for this Court to clarify said fact and it is for the Court of first instance which passed the status quo order, to clarify as to what it meant while granting status quo qua the usage of the path by the applicants existing over the suit land. 8. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the petitioner shall file an appropriate application seeking this clarification on the learned Trial Court. The petitioner is permitted to do the needful and 6 this petition is closed without interfering with the order passed by the learned Trial Court, which stands assailed before this Court, but with the observation that the order of the police assistance which has been passed by the learned Trial Court shall be in compliance to the order that was passed by the learned Court on 31.08.2024, coupled with its clarification as may be given by the Court in the event of the defendant filing any application for clarification. In the event of any such application being filed within one week from today, let the same be positively decided on or before 31.08.2025 after adhering to the principles of natural justice. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 17, 2025 (Vinod)