Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ali Mohammad @ Alli @ Ismail And Anr vs Khurshid Ahmad And Ors on 20 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151828
117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-3994-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 20.11.2024
Ali Mohammad @ Alli @ Ismail & Anr ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Khurshid Ahmad & Ors ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Saurabh Verma, Advocate for
Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the
Trial Court whereby the application filed by the decree-holder/plaintiff-
respondent No.1 for providing Police help has been allowed.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 herein filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining
the defendant-petitioners from interfering in his peaceful possession which
was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 24.08.2010. Aggrieved by the
same, an appeal was preferred by the defendant-petitioners herein which was
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2011. The said judgments
and decrees passed by both the Courts were affirmed by this Court in a regular
second appeal preferred by the defendant-petitioners herein. Thereafter, an
execution petition was filed for Police help on the ground that the judgment
debtor/defendant-petitioners were interfering in the peaceful possession of the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151828
CR-3994-2022 (O&M) -2-
plaintiff-respondent No.1. Meanwhile, on 09.10.2019 a civil suit for
declaration was filed by the father of the defendant-petitioners herein
alongwith a prayer for joint possession. The said civil suit is pending.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners would contend that
the order directing Police help for protecting the possession of the DH-
plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein could not have been ordered as the civil suit
for declaration and possession is pending. It is further the contention of the
learned counsel that it is the plaintiff-respondent No.1 who was interfering in
their possession.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1
would contend that the suit for permanent injunction was decreed in favour of
the DH-plaintiff-respondent No.1 on 24.08.2010 and was affirmed upto this
Court. Thereafter in 2019 a suit for declaration and joint possession has been
filed, which is pending. However, since it has been upheld upto this Court that
the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is in possession, he is entitled to protect his
possession till the decision of the suit for declaration and possession filed by
the defendant-petitioners herein.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In the present case, a decree dated 24.08.2010 passed in favour
of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was affirmed upto this Court. Though a suit
for declaration and possession has now been filed by the father of the
defendant-petitioners, however, admittedly there is no order of status quo.
That being so, once the decree in favour of the DH-plaintiff-respondent No.1
has been upheld upto this Court, he has a right to protect his possession till
such time as the suit for declaration and joint possession is decided. The
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151828
CR-3994-2022 (O&M) -3-
petitioners cannot interfere in the possession of the DH-plaintiff-respondent
No.1 till such time as there is a decree passed in his favour.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present
revision petition. The same being devoid of any merits is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
20.11.2024 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
3 of 3
