While granting relief to a senior citizen in a property dispute matter, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that merely because the litigant has an alternative remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), it will not preclude him/her from invoking the provisions of Section 151 for the enforcement of the injunction order through police assistance.

The High Court was considering a petition filed against the order whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the CPC seeking police assistance for the implementation of an order was rejected.

The Single Bench of Justice Romesh Verma held, “The only grievance, which the petitioner has raised in the present proceedings, is that the injunction order which stands passed by the learned trial court should be implemented with the aid of the police of Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur. Merely for the reason that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC, will not preclude the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Section 151 CPC for the enforcement of the injunction order through the police assistance.”

Senior Advocate Rajiv Jiwan represented the Petitioner.

Factual Background

The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against his son and daughter-in-law seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from causing any type of interference in the house/ premises of the plaintiff, and raising any type of construction, digging the land, changing the nature, creating any type of hindrance and interference over the suit land.

The plaintiff/petitioner claimed that he is a joint owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants were trying to occupy the house and suit land forcibly with the help of others. The plaintiff further claimed that he is a simpleton old man suffering from heart disease and could not resist the illegal designs of the defendants. The plaintiff, along with the suit, filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for restraining the defendants from interfering with the premises of the plaintiff. The Trial Court, vide its order dated March 5, 2026, allowed the application, thereby restraining the respondents from interfering with the house premises of the plaintiff or raising any construction over the house and suit land in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of the suit.

The petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for the grant of police assistance for the implementation of the order dated March 5, 2026 against the first respondent on the ground that despite the passing of the injunction order, the respondents were interfering, creating hindrance and disturbance in the house premises of the plaintiff. The Trial Court, vide its impugned order, dismissed the application as filed by the petitioner. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the present matter was an unfortunate story as the litigation was between the father on the one side and the son and the daughter-in-law on the other side. The Bench noted that the Trial Court had dismissed the application for seeking police assistance primarily on the ground that one room, kitchen and one toilet were given to the respondent as per the direction of the Gram Panchayat, and that the said room was in possession of the respondent.

The Bench clarified that the Apex Court has repeatedly held that an interim protection order passed by the court of law has to be implemented in its letter and spirit, and no one can be permitted to violate the same. “The majesty of the court order has to be upheld. On account of the defiance as made by the present respondents, the petitioner has been compelled to approach the court for the grant of interim protection and police assistance. Once the injunction order stands passed by the court, then the same cannot remain on papers and cannot be permitted to be violated to the detriment of the rights of the petitioner, and it has to be implemented in its letter and spirit for the protection of senior citizen, as in the case in hand”, it added.

The Bench took note of the grievances of the senior citizen who was being harassed at the hands of his son and daughter-in-law and was alleging that the respondents intended to oust him from the suit property.“During the pendency of the suit, as injunction order has already been passed, the police authorities can be directed to enforce the injunction order to protect the rights of an old man”, it held.

Decision

Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench directed the SHO, Police Station Bharari, District Bilaspur, to enforce and implement the injunction order, dated March 5, 2026 in its letter and spirit.

Cause Title: Prem Lal v. Sapna & anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:42288)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajiv Jiwan, Advocates Yug Singhal, Hitender Verma

Respondent: Ex-parte

Click here to read/download Order


Himachal Pradesh High CourtJustice Romesh Verma

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.