1( 2026:HHC:19415 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.591 of 2022 Reserved on : 11.05.2026 Date of decision: 22.05.2026 Rajesh Kumari ...Petitioner Versus Prem Sagar & another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ridima Karol , Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned Senior Judge Civil Judge, Court No.1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 04.08.2022, whereby the application under Section 151 of C.P.C for police aid has been allowed with direction to preserve the suit land and also to maintain harmonious relationship between the parties. The Police of Police Station Bharari has been directed to provide necessary help to the petitioner in case the respondents cause any interference, dig the suit land, raise construction and 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2( 2026:HHC:19415 ) change the nature of the suit land, however it has been ordered that the question with respect to removing of locks by the respondents or the petitioner over the suit land shall be decided by the Court when necessary evidence is led by both the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference over any part of the land in suit measuring 2-3 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 220/96,222/110, 187,224/195,249/225/195,196 kitta-6 No. Khata/khatauni No.14/14, situated in Village Chakrana, Pargana Ajmerpur, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in any manner either personally or through the agents, servants and family members was sought to be passed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner and against the defendants/respondents. In alternative decree of possession was sought in case the defendants/respondents forcibly dispossess the plaintiff/petitioner from the suit land or any part of it during the pendency of the suit. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff along with the suit filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for restraining the respondent /defendant either personally or through their agents, servants or family members from causing any interference over the suit land in any manner. It was also 3( 2026:HHC:19415 ) averred that the defendants tried to unlock the room where machinery and meter bearing BHA-1044 have been installed, which is constructed over a part of the suit land. 4. The learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner vide its order dated 09.05.2017. The respondent/defendant was retained from interfering digging, raising construction and changing the nature of the suit land till the final decision of the main suit. 5. After passing of the interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, the applicant/plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C for police assistance. It was averred in the application that the respondents are strangers to the suit land and they are forceful and strong headed persons. There is a well in the suit land alongwith the structure where electricity meter connection has been installed. On 16.06.2018, the respondents dug the suit land to occupy it. Though, the Court had passed an interim injunction on 09.05.2017 in favour of the applicant/plaintiff and against the respondents however, despite passing of the said order, the respondents started digging the suit land on 16.06.2018 and violated the orders passed by Court on 09.05.2017. The matter was reported by the plaintiff to the police on 17.06.2028 and entry was made in Rojnamcha and in pursuance to that, the police visited the spot. It has been stated that there is a tubewell belonging to 4( 2026:HHC:19415 ) the plaintiff and the electricity connection bearing No. BHA 1044-AS-ASBH has been installed in the name of the petitioner since 2010 and he has regularly been paying charges thereof. It has been averred that the old meter was not giving proper reading so it was required to be replaced as under new scheme the government has provided the new electricity meters. In order to replace the same on 06.06.2019 Sh. Anil Kumar Dhiman alongwith his two associates entered in the land of the petitioner under the supervision of Sh. Roop Lal AE of the HPSEB Ltd. Bharari Sub Division but, the respondents quarreled with them and did not allow to replace the meter as per direction of the government. When respondents did not allow to replace the electricity meter, the petitioner as usual put her locks in the room where machine and meter have been installed, but soon thereafter respondents also put their locks and unauthorizedly tried to occupy the room which is in possession of the petitioner as the said structure is over the suit land. 6. A prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner that after allowing the application, the injunction order passed by the Court dated 09.05.2017 may be implemented and the SHO Police Station Bharari may be directed to remove the locks of the respondents and interference may kindly be 5( 2026:HHC:19415 ) ordered to be stopped by implementing the Court order dated 09.05.2017. 7. The said application was duly resisted by the respondents/defendants by raising preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability, cause of action, estoppel etc. It was stated that the petitioner is wrongly and illegally claiming ownership over the land measuring 2-3 bighas as mentioned in para 2 of the application. It was denied that there is well in the suit land and stated that in fact the well and electrical motor are situated over the land of the respondents comprised in Khasra No. 189 and electrical meter was installed in the name of father of respondent No.1 in the year 1970-1971. 8. It was denied that the respondents started digging the suit land on 16.06.2018 and violated the injunction order passed by the Court. It was stated that the petitioner is in the habit of filing false complaints and intended to harass the respondents unnecessarily. It was denied that tubewell belongs to the petitioner and electrical meter has been installed in his name in the year 2010. All the averments as made in the application were refuted and denied and it was prayed that the application as filed by the plaintiff/petitioner be ordered to be dismissed. 6( 2026:HHC:19415 ) 9. Vide impugned order, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Ghumarwin, the aforesaid application was partly accepted, however, as far as removing of the locks by the respondents,it was ordered that the said issue shall be decided by the Court when necessary evidence is led by both the parties. 10. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court by challenging the impugned order. 11. It is contended by Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ridima Karol, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. He submits that the learned trial Court has virtually modified the injunction order which was passed by it in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. He further submits that by passing the impugned order, virtually a premium has been given to a wrongdoer and the same is not in consonance with the provisions of law. He has stated that after accepting the present petition the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C deserves to be allowed in toto as per the prayer made in the application. 12. On the other hand, the impugned order is defended by Mr. Umesh Kanwar,learned counsel for the respondents. He submits that the learned Court below has 7( 2026:HHC:19415 ) rightly passed the order and there is no infirmity, illegality in the impugned order, therefore, after affirming the said order, present petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file. 14. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference over the suit land and in alternative, decree for possession was sought in case during the pendency of the suit plaintiff is dispossessed by the defendants. CMP bearing No.569/6 of 2016 was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for restraining the defendants/respondents from causing any interference over any part of the suit land in any manner either personally or through their agents, servants, family members. 15. Though the said application was resisted by the respondents, however, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur vide its order dated 09.05.2017 allowed the application and respondents were restrained from interfering, digging, raising construction and changing the nature of the suit land over the suit land and changing the nature of the suit land till the final decision of the main suit. It is admitted by the respective parties that the said injunction order passed on 09.05.2017 has attained 8( 2026:HHC:19415 ) finality and the respondents/defendants have not assailed the said order in any competent Court of law. Meaning thereby, the injunction order, which was passed by the learned trial Court holds the field as of today. 16. In common parlance when an injunction order has been passed by the Competent Court of law, no person can be allowed to flout the said order in any manner. It has come on record that after passing of the injunction order on 09.05.2017, the defendants/respondents started making interference over the suit land. It has come on record that the defendants/respondents started digging the suit land on 16.06.2018 and violated the injunction order. Though the matter was reported to the Police of Police Station Bharari on 17.06.2018 and entry was also made in Rojnamcha GD entry No. 009 of police record. Pursuant to that the police visited the spot and the reference qua that has been made in the GD entry No.032 of the police. Despite that the respondents failed to obey the order of injunction. It has come on record especially in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit that there is tubewell belonging to the petitioner and the electricity connection bearing account No. BHA 1044 installed in the name of petitioner since 2010. It is case of the petitioner that old meter was not giving proper reading and as per directions of the Department, meter was required to be 9( 2026:HHC:19415 ) replaced under the new scheme. In order to replace the meter on 06.06.2019 Sh. Anil Kumar Dhiman alongwith his two associates entered the suit land under the supervision of Roop lal A.E of the HPSEB Ltd. Bharari Sub Division. The respondents quarreled with them and did not allow to replace the meter. When respondent did not allow to replace the electricity meter, the petitioner put locks on the room where machine and meter have been installed. However, surprisingly, the respondents put their locks and unauthorizedly tried to occupy the room which as per case of the petitioner is in their possession. Though the matter was reported to the police on 7.6.2019 and it was brought to the notice of the police that tubewell, machine alongwith meter are in the possession of the petitioner which are kept in the room having been constructed over the part of the suit land bearing khasra No., 224/195, however, police authority refused to take any action against the respondents. 17. Despite passing of injunction order it is the case of the petitioner that respondents are unnecessarily causing interference and violated the order dated 09.05.2017. It is in this back ground that application has been filed by the petitioner for the removal of the locks as put by the respondents with the further prayer that the injunction order may be implemented and SHO of Police Station Bharari be 10( 2026:HHC:19415 ) directed for the removal of the locks with further prayer that respondents be directed not to interfere in any manner over the suit land. 18. Though the learned trial court prima facie found the application filed by the petitioner to be sustainable and directions were issued to preserve the suit land and to maintain harmonious relationship between the parties, accordingly police of Police Station Bharari was directed to provide necessary help to the petitioner in case the respondents cause any interference, raise construction and change the structure of the suit land, however, it has been held that question with respect to removal of the locks by the respondents or defendants over the suit land shall be decided by the Court when necessary evidence is led by the parties. 19. This Court is in agreement with the contentions as raised by Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. Ridima Karol for the petitioner that once an injunction order has been passed qua the suit land in favour of the petitioner, in that event the respondents cannot be permitted to violate and flout the injunction order in any manner. He submits that after passing of the injunction order, respondent has forcibly put locks on the suit property which is clear cut violation of the injunction order. He further submits that once the Court came to the conclusion that case has been made 11( 2026:HHC:19415 ) out for allowing an application under Section 151 C.P.C then in further part of the order it should have been ordered to remove the lock. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as well as this Court has repeatedly held that in order to maintain the majesty of the Court orders, the interim protection orders passed by the competent Court have to be implemented in letter and spirit. No one can be permitted to violate the same in order to defeat the rights of the parties. Nobody can be permitted to pollute stream of justice and the sanctity of the Court’s order has to be upheld at any cost. 21. Admittedly, the injunction order has attained finality. Neither the said order has been set-aside nor it has been modified by any Court. 22. On account of defiance as made by the respondents, plaintiff was to approach the Court for the grant of police assistance. Once injunction order has been passed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner then the same cannot be permitted to be violated to the detriment the rights of the plaintiff/petitioner. 23. This Court in CMPMO No. 146 of 2026 has held as follows: “19.The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court has repeatedly held that an interim protection order 12( 2026:HHC:19415 ) passed by the Competent Court has to be implemented in its letter and spirit and no one can be permitted to violate the same. The majesty of the Court orders has to be upheld. On account of the defiance as made by the present defendants/respondents, the petitioner/plaintiff were compelled to approach the Court for the grant of interim protection and for the grant of police assistance. Once the interim protection has been granted to the petitioner/plaintiff, then the same cannot be permitted to be violated to the detriment to the rights of the plaintiff.” 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this 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 be permitted to violate the same. On account of the defiance as made by the present defendants/respondents, the petitioner/ plaintiff was compelled to approach the Court for the grant of interim protection and for the grant of police assistance. Virtually the respondent has dragged the petitioner in uncalled for litigation. 25. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO No. 166 of 2021, titled Sanjay Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar & others, decided on 13.07.2023, has held as under:- “7. This Court in Jaishi Ram and others Vs. Salig Ram, 1981 Sim. L.C. 156 has 13( 2026:HHC:19415 ) held that if the circumstances of a case are such that assistance of police for the enforcement of an order is necessary, 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 presence case. The learned Judges have discussed the case-law on the point. They have not agreed with certain prior decisions. The relevant 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 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 provide for implementation of the order of injunction itself. 14( 2026:HHC:19415 ) Order 39, Rule 2(3) cannot be said to be an express provision with respect to implementation 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 provisions in the Code for enforcement of the order, it is not only proper but also necessary that the courts should render all 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 it clothes 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 the order. No doubt in such a case, the aggrieved party himself could approach the police authorities to prevent obstruction to the enforcement of the order or to the exercise of the right which 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 the ends of justice or to prevent 15( 2026:HHC:19415 ) 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 court would 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 the 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 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 16( 2026:HHC:19415 ) 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 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 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 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 17( 2026:HHC:19415 ) 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 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 either party 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 for 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 preventive measure. This power though not expressly conferred, is a power incidental or ancillary to the exercise of the power to grant 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 civil Court cannot direct police aid for execution 18( 2026:HHC:19415 ) of its order - interlocutory or final and that the party should only have recourse to the procedure laid down under Order XXI, Rule 32 or the Contempt of Courts Act. The observations are in the nature of obiter and therefore not binding on me. It is therefore unnecessary to refer the matter to the Division Bench, more so in view of the decision 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.” 26. The totality of the facts and circumstances in the present case indicates that this is a fit case for interfering in the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court. In case, interim protection granted by the learned trial Court is not implemented, in that event, the very purpose of filing of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C and order of injunction passed by the learned trial Court on 09.05.2017 shall be defeated. By passing the impugned order, virtually the learned trial Court has modified/altered injunction order which was never assailed by the defendants. 19( 2026:HHC:19415 ) 27. In the considered opinion of this Court the present application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C for providing the police assistance and to enforce the order dated 09.05.2017 deserves to be allowed. 28. The SHO Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur is directed to comply with the order dated 09.05.2017 and he can take the assistance of the revenue authority to do the needful on the spot. Consequently, after setting aside the impugned orders, application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is allowed to enforce the order of injunction as existing on the spot on 09.05.2017 including removal of the locks over the suit property. However it is made clear that the same shall be subject to final adjudication of the main case. 29. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition is allowed and the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma), Judge 22.05.2026 (veena)