Bombay High Court
Gurudas Pochanna Bhimekar And Another vs Maroti Sukram Wadhai And Others on 19 June, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:5689
1 24.wp.4633.21-JF.odt
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4633 OF 2021
1. Shri Gurudas Pochanna Bhimekar,
Aged 62 years, Occ. : Farmer,
2. Shri Kalidas Hanmantu Pendor,
Aged 57 years, Occ.: Farmer,
Both R/o. Chekthana, Post Dighori, ... PETITIONERS
Tahsil Pombhurna, District Chandrapur. (Original Plaintiff)
...VERSUS...
1. Shri Maroti Sukram Wadhai,
Aged 62 years, Occ.: Farmer,
2. Shri Shamrao Shankar Mashakhetri,
Aged 62 years, Occ.: Farmer,
3. Shri Ashok Chandu Pendor,
Aged 57 years, Occ. : Farmer,
4. Shri Ramdas Antu Gedam,
Aged 59 years. Occ.: Farmer,
5. Subhash Ramchandra More (Dead),
Aged 52 years, Occ.: Farmer,
(Added Legal Heirs of respondent No.5
vide Court's order dated 18.08.2022.)
5-I. Gopika wd/o. Subhash More,
Aged about 40 years, Occ.- Labor
5-II. Mayur s/o. Subhash More,
Aged about 20 years, Occ.- Student.
5-III. Ramchandra Gavarsha More,
Aged 75 years, Occ. Nil,
All R/o., Chekthana, Post Dighori,
Tahsil Pombhurna, District Chandrapur.
6. Shri Uddhav Paikuji Madavi,
Aged 46 years. Occ.: Farmer,
2 24.wp.4633.21-JF.odt
7. Shri Sudhakar Ravji Wakde,
Aged 57 years, Occ.: Farmer.
8. Shri Sayaji Shamrao Mhashakhetri,
Aged 34 years, Occ.: Farmer,
9. Shri Digambar Gopala Sontakke,
Aged 52 years, Occ.: Farmer,
10. Shri Uddhav Tulshiram Kamatkar,
Aged 67 years, Occ.: Farmer.
11. Shri Sampat Chandu Pendor,
Aged 52 years, Occ.: Farmer,
12. Smt. Shashikala Baburao Mohurle,
Aged 62 years, Occ.: Farmer,
13. Sou. Lalita Anil Mashakhetri,
Aged 47 years, Occ.: Farmer,
14. Shri Masram Bhadu Mohurle,
Aged 67 years, Occ.: Farmer,
15. Shri Raju Tulsiram Mohurle (Dead)
Aged 32 years. Occ.: Farmer,
(Added Legal Heirs of Respondent No.15 vide
Court's Order dated 18.08.2022).
15-I. Shalu wd/o. Raju Mohurle,
Aged 35 years, Occ. Labor,
15-II. Tulsiram Mandu Mohurle,
Aged 69 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
15-III. Tarabai Tulsiram Mohurle,
Aged : 65 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
All R/o. Chekthan, Post Dighori,
Tahsil Pombhurna, District - Chandrapur,
16. Shri Dadaji Manaji Itekar,
Aged 67 years, Occ.: Farmer,
17. Shri Dashrath Manaji Itekar,
Aged 57 years, Occ.: Farmer,
3 24.wp.4633.21-JF.odt
18. Shri Jaypal Maroti Wadhai,
Aged 27 years, Occ.: Farmer,
19. Shri Sunil Shamrao Mashakhetri,
Aged 37 years, Occ.: Farmer,
20. Shri Lakhan Ramdas Gedam,
Aged 28 years, Occ.: Farmer,
21. Shri Rakesh Ramdas Gedam,
Aged 34 years, Occ.: Farmer.
22. Shri Dinkar Shambhashiv Wadhai,
Aged 57 years, Occ.: Farmer,
23. Shri Bandu Sadashiv Lendgure,
Aged 52 years, Occ.: Farmer,
24. Shri Sarang Laxman Shinde,
Aged 56 years, Occ.: Farmer,
25. Shri Kisan Parshuram Sherki,
Aged 52 years, Occ.: Farmer,
26. Shri Waman Namdeo Sherki,
Aged 62 years, Occ.: Farmer,
27. Shri Shalik Chandu Pendor,
Aged 47 years, Occ.: Farmer,
28. Shri Raju Devidas Gurnule,
Aged 27 years, Occ.: Farmer,
29. Shri Sandip Sambhashiv Wadhai,
Aged 37 years, Occ.: Farmer.
All R/o Chekthana, Post Dighori, ... RESPONDENTS
Tahsil Pombhurna, District Chandrapur. (Original Respondents)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Ira P. Khisti, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. N. R. Bhisikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 14 & 16 to 29.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 12.06.2025.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 19.06.2025
4 24.wp.4633.21-JF.odt
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.04.2019
passed below Exhibit-46 in Special Civil Suit No.6/2017 by the Civil Judge
Junior Division, Pombhurna, District Chandrapur thereby rejecting the
application for grant of police aid.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners being
landless persons encroached upon the Government land mouza Chekthana
since 1976 and cultivating the Government land bearing Survey No.117,
admeasuring 1.81 HR and Survey No.200 admeasuring 1.81 H.R. As per
official record, particular land was for use of Graveyard. On the complaint
received from the complainant, the Tahsildar, Pombhurna and Collector
have attempted to dispossess the petitioners from both the land. The
petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit, which was dismissed by the Civil Court,
but allowed by the Appellate Court and the possession of the petitioners
was protected and the Government was restrained from dispossessing the
petitioners from said land without following the due procedure. The
petitioners are cultivating the said land by taking paddy crops. On
31.05.2017, the respondents attempted to dispossess the petitioners and
respondent No.11 has buried the dead body of his mother in the field of
5 24.wp.4633.21-JF.odt
petitioner No.2. When the petitioners objected for it, the respondents
threatened them. Therefore, the complaint was lodged by the petitioners to
the police but no cognizance was taken by the police. As such, the
petitioners have filed Civil Suit against the respondents bearing No.6/2017
and the interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioners. The
temporary injunction was granted on 21.07.2018. Though the injunction
was operating against the respondents, the respondents came with wooden
stick and beat the petitioners mercilessly. On 08.10.2018, the respondents
tried to bury the dead body of one Arun Kumbhare when the petitioners
were working in their field. They attempted to cremate the body and when
the petitioners objected, they gave threats to the petitioners. Thereafter, the
petitioners immediately went to Police Station, but the police expressed
their inability to intervene unless there is an order of the Competent Court.
Therefore, the petitioners have filed the application on 28.10.2018. The
Trial Court has rejected the application for grant of police aid and,
therefore, the petitioners have filed this petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has stated that the
earlier order of injunction was in favour of the petitioners. The Government
was restrained from disturbing the possession of the petitioners. The
respondents tried to beat and tried to forcibly bury the dead body, the
petitioners have filed the complaint which was not acted upon by the police.
Though it amounts to criminal act, no action was taken by the police. As
6 24.wp.4633.21-JF.odt
per Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Civil Court has jurisdiction
to pass the order and grant police protection.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of Bhagwan and Ors. Vs. Mohammad Imam Hiriwale and Ors
reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 2055, wherein this Court has observed
that the Trial Court can grant police aid, if required.
In the case of Nirabai J. Patil Vs. Narayan D. Patil reported in
2004(1) Mh.L.J. 1058, wherein the Court has observed that the police help
should be made available provided facts of the case warrant passing of such
order.
In the case of Shrimati Ratnabai w/o. Narayanrao Naik and
Anr. Vs. Shri. Satwarao s/o. Narayanrao Naik reported in AIR 1995 Bom 61,
this Court has observed as under :
"8. It is no doubt that the Police help is an extraordinary
mode or procedure to implement the execution of the decree
or orders. In other words, Police help is to be regarded as an
extreme step, and as such it should not be recommended
unless the Court is fully convinced of the existence of a grave
emergency. Therefore, a decree-holder praying for police help
has to state whether such help is required either;
(i) because of apprehension of violence or obstruction from
judgment-debtor himself or at his instance by others or;
(ii) because of conditions of a general character such as the
locality where execution will have to be effected being in a
disturbed state or a class of people, similarly situated being
7 24.wp.4633.21-JF.odt
likely to make, a common cause with judgment-debtor and
resist execution."
In the case of Shrimati Ratnabai w/o. Narayanrao Naik and
Anr. (supra), protection can be granted if required at the time of execution
of decree.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the petition
stating that the Trial Court has not denied that under Section 151 of the
C.P.C., the Court can pass the order of police aid. However, before passing
such order, it is required to be seen that the other remedies which are
available for breach of the injunction should be availed by the parties. The
matter is pending since 2018. One incident is mentioned and since then no
complaint is lodged by the petitioners. Thereafter, no incident took place to
lodge the complaint. Only on the basis of one complaint, the protection is
prayed. The Trial Court has rightly passed the order. There is no
irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence,
prayed to reject the petition.
7. The respondents have relied on the judgment of Nirabai J. Patil
Vs. Narayan D. Patil reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 1058 and the judgment of
the Orissa High Court in the case of Subal Kumar Dey Vs. Purna Chandra
Giri and Ors. reported in AIR 1989 ORISSA 214 in support of their
argument that when the other remedies are available, police aid cannot be
granted to protect the interim protection granted by the Court.
8 24.wp.4633.21-JF.odt
8. Heard both the learned Counsel for the parties.
9. This is the case where the petitioners are protected by granting
interim protection by the Competent Court. During pendency of said
protection, the respondents tried to bury the dead body in the field where
the petitioners are taking crops. It is not yet decided whether said place is
Dafan Bhumi or land for cremation. On perusal of the complaint lodged by
the petitioners, it appears that there was a violence, the people gathered
there. In such a situation, it is the duty of the police to take cognizance of
the complaint on their level. Earlier, one body was buried and thereafter,
the suit was filed and injunction was obtained. Though the respondents
were aware about the injunction, they forcibly tried to bury the body. Such
interference could have been drawn by the police in such a situation. It is
not the case, where the petitioners are seeking the police aid for execution
of injunction order. The injunction order is violated by the respondents.
The Trial Court has rightly observed that the petitioners have remedy for
breach of injunction order.
10. On perusal of the judgments cited by the petitioners, it appears
that the police protection can be granted if the facts of the case warrant
passing of such order. In this case, one incident is of beating the petitioners
by sticks and wooden log by the respondents and in other case, they tried to
bury the dead body in the field. The petitioners handled the situation on
their own and restrained the respondents from doing that act. It is the
9 24.wp.4633.21-JF.odt
contention of the respondents that since 2018 till 2025, no incident
occurred, which shows that there is no necessity for police protection and
how it can be granted.
11. The petitioners have prayed for police protection during the
pendency of Civil Suit. When I questioned, what type of protection is
required, the learned Counsel for the petitioners is restricting her prayer for
taking cognizance of the complaint lodged by the petitioners to the police
regarding disturbance or violence, if any, is made by the respondents. If any
complaint about criminal act is made, the police have to take cognizance of
it. For that purpose Court's order is not required.
12. The remedy is available to the petitioners to take action against
disobedience of the interim order. Hence, interference at the hands of this
Court is not required.
13. In view of above, the petition stands dismissed.
Rule is discharged. No costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/06/2025 16:53:24
