LACHHMAN DASS Vs. BABU RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and decree dated 12.1.2012 was rendered in Civil Suit No. 72 of 2004. However, the fact of the matter is that despite the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2012, respondents though restrained, but did not stop raising construction, which led to the appointment of the Local Commissioners thrice. All the Local Commissioners have pointed out that the construction was still being raised by the respondents despite the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2012. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached the trial Court for seeking police assistance. The application was rejected vide order dated 21.3.2015.

(2.) THE Court is of the considered view that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, more particularly when the respondents were raising construction despite the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2012, the police assistance ought to have been provided. There may not be any specific provision to provide police assistance, but the Court in order to maintain Rule of law, could provide the police assistance to the parties towards execution of the judgment and decree or any order exercising its inherent power.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge in titled as The State of Bihar v. Usha Devi and another has held that if a Court comes to the conclusion that an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 or 2 has been disobeyed and by a contravention of that order the other party in the suit has done something for its own advantage to the prejudice of the other party, it is open to the Court under inherent jurisdiction to bring back the party to a position where it originally stood as if the order passed by the Court has not been contravened. The learned Single Judge has held as under: