L.N. Mittal, J.@mdashDefendants no. 1 and 2 have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 25.10.2012 Annexure P/13 passed by the trial court granting police help to respondent no. 1/plaintiff for implementing order dated 5.9.2012 Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court. Respondent no. 1-plaintiff has filed suit against petitioners and proforma respondent no. 2 as defendants. In the said suit, on application of plaintiff for temporary injunction, the trial court vide order dated 5.9.2012 Annexure P/5 restrained the defendants from interfering in cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit land except in due course of law, till the final disposal of the suit.
2. Plaintiff filed application Annexure P11 alleging that the defendants inspite of temporary injunction order Annexure P/5 threatened to cut and remove the standing crop of the plaintiff from the suit land and the defendants refused to abide by temporary injunction order Annexure P/5. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought police help to implement temporary injunction order Annexure P/5.
3. Defendants by filing reply Annexure P/12 denied the averments made in the application Annexure P/11 and pleaded that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land.
4. Learned trial court vide Annexure P/13 has allowed plaintiff''s application and has granted police help to implement the temporary injunction order Annexure P/5. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no. 1 and 2 have filed this revision petition to assail order Annexure P/13.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
6. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that appeal filed by defendants no 1 and 2 against order Annexure P/5 is still pending in the lower appellate court and during pendency of the said appeal, police help could not be granted to implement order Annexure P/5. It was also contended that since both the parties are claiming possession over the suit land, police help could not be granted to implement temporary injunction order. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of
7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. In appeal preferred by defendants no. 1 and 2 against order Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court, there is admittedly no order of stay of operation of order Annexure P/5. Consequently, order Annexure P/5 has to be enforced. There is positive order in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering in cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit land except in due course of law. However, inspite thereof, the defendants were allegedly trying to interfere in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Police help has, therefore, been rightly granted to the plaintiff to implement order Annexure P/5. If contention of counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then order Annexure P/5 would be rendered completely redundant and futile and even appeal filed against the said order by the petitioners would automatically stand allowed for all practical purposes, without adjudication, because according to contention of counsel for the petitioner, order Annexure P/5 cannot be implemented by grant of police help. If it is so, then what for the plaintiff has obtained said order Orders of the courts are passed so as to be implemented and not to become redundant by forcible disobedience by the party against whom the said orders are passed. Consequently, in the instant case, police help could not be declined to the plaintiff for implementation of order Annexure P/5 merely because defendants no. 1 and 2 have filed appeal against the said order. It may be repeated that there is no interim order passed by the appellate court to stay operation of order Annexure P/5.
8. Judgment in the case of Malkeet Singh and others (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case because in that case, there were temporary injunction orders granted in two different suits in favour of each party. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order Annexure P/13 passed by the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit or on merits of the appeal filed by petitioners against order Annexure P/5.
