- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sunil Kumar Halder And Others v. Nishikanta Bhandari And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners instituted Title Suit No. 509 of 1979 in May 1979 in the Munsif Court, Diamond Harbour, seeking declaration of title and injunction against opposite parties Nos. 1 to 14. The defendants appeared and filed a written statement. The petitioners applied under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for interim relief. By order No. 95 dated 20 April 1982 the learned Munsif granted injunction in favour of the petitioners restraining the defendants from interfering with the petitioners' possession in the suit lands except Plot No. 1529/2080 (this order was annexure 'A').
On 21 June 1982 the petitioners applied for police protection while cultivating the suit lands, alleging threats by the defendants to disturb their possession. The learned Munsif rejected that application by order No. 98 dated 24 June 1982 on the ground that no overt act had been committed by the defendants and the petitioners only apprehended disturbance. The petitioners filed the present application under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code (Civil Procedure Code) challenging the Munsif's order rejecting police protection.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the learned Munsif erred in rejecting the petitioners' application for police protection communicated under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code when the petitioners alleged threats to their possession despite an injunction order?
- Whether the learned Munsif failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law in refusing to direct police protection in the circumstances of the case?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners relied on prior proceedings (Criminal Proceeding Case No. 828 of 1979) in which an inquiry report was submitted and they had previously obtained injunction and police protection, which had enabled them to complete cultivation with police assistance.
- They submitted that the learned Munsif rejected the application for police protection without any reason, despite the petitioners' contention that the injunction would otherwise be rendered infructuous by threatened interference.
- Counsel argued that while remedies for violation of injunction (such as punishment of violators) exist, those remedies would not secure the petitioners' ability to cultivate and reap the benefit of the injunction; hence immediate police protection was necessary.
- To support the contention the petitioners' counsel relied on a reported decision: (1981) 85 Cal WN 958 (Saudamini Roychowdhury v. Satyendra Nath Sarkar), where a court directed appropriate police measures after finding failure to exercise jurisdiction.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| (1981) 85 Cal WN 958 — Saudamini Roychowdhury v. Satyendra Nath Sarkar | Held that the court had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and the impugned order could not be allowed to stand; the court below was directed to pass appropriate directions upon the police as prayed for. | The present court relied on this decision to conclude that the learned Munsif had similarly failed to exercise his jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioners' request for police protection, and therefore set aside the Munsif's order and directed him to give appropriate directions to the police. |
| AIR 1971 Andh Pra 53 — Rayapati Andemma v. Pothineni Narasimham | This Bench decision was relied upon in Saudamini Roychowdhury v. Satyendra Nath Sarkar (as recorded in the opinion). | The opinion notes that the Saudamini decision itself relied on this Bench decision; the present court considered Saudamini (which had relied on this Bench decision) in reaching its conclusion that the Munsif failed to exercise jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the record and the sequence of events: the prior grant of injunction by the learned Munsif (order No. 95), the petitioners' application for police protection dated 21 June 1982, and the subsequent rejection of that application by order No. 98 dated 24 June 1982 on the stated ground that no overt act had been committed and only apprehension of disturbance existed.
The court accepted the petitioners' contention and precedent cited by them indicating that a court must exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to protect the effectiveness of its own orders. Noting the earlier decision in Saudamini Roychowdhury (which directed a lower court to give appropriate directions to police where the lower court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction), and that Saudamini relied on a Bench decision reported at AIR 1971 Andh Pra 53, the court concluded that the learned Munsif had rejected the petitioners' application without any reason and thereby failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law.
Based on that conclusion, rather than remanding for further factual inquiry, the court set aside the Munsif's order rejecting police protection and directed the Munsif to issue appropriate directions to the police as prayed for in the petitioners' application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: Application allowed; the order passed by the learned Munsif (No. 98 dated 24-6-82) is set aside.
The court directed the learned Munsif to give appropriate directions to the police as requested in the petitioners' application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, to be done within two weeks from receipt of this Court's order. The court ordered that there will be no order as to costs and that the order may be communicated by a special messenger at the cost of the petitioners.
Implications: The decision directly affects the parties by vacating the Munsif's refusal of police protection and compelling the Munsif to furnish police directions; the opinion does not state any broader precedent beyond applying the cited authorities to the facts, and no new separate legal principle is declared other than the application of the cited authorities to set aside the impugned order.
1. This is an application under S. 115, read with S. 151 of the Code and is directed against order No. 98 dated June 24, 1982, passed by the Munsif, First Court, Diamond Harbour, in Title Suit No. 509 of 1979. By the above order, the learned Munsif rejected the petitioners' application praying for police protection for cultivating the suit lands. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction on May 1979 being Title Suit No. 509 of 1979 against the opposite party Nos. 1 to 14 in the first Court of the Munsif, Diamond Harbour. The defendants appeared and filed written statement. The petitioners made an application under O. 39, R. 1 of the Code. The defendants opposed the said application and the learned Munsif by order No. 95 dated April 20, 1982 passed an order in favour of the petitioners restraining the defendants from interfering with the petitioners' possession in the suit lands except Plot No. 1529/2080. A copy of the said order of injunction has been made annexure ‘A’ to the petition. On June 21, 1982 an application was filed by the petitioners praying for police protection at the time of cultivation as the defendants were threatening to disturh the peaceful possession of the petitioners in the suit lands. The learned Munsif by his order No. 98 dated 24-6-82 rejected the said application on the ground that no overt act was committed by the defendants and the petitioners only apprehended that there would be disturbance in the matter of cultivation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have come up to this Court.
2. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that earlier the petitioners were compelled to bring a Criminal Proceeding Case No. 828 of 1979 before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Diamond Harbour. In the said proceeding, enquiry report was submitted by the J.L.R.O Pathar Praima and the petitioners obtained an order of injunction against the defendants and further obtained an order of police protection and with the help of police the petitioners completed cultivation. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the learned Munsif rejected the application without any reason whatsoever when the plaintiffs came out with a case that the order of injunction obtained by them would be infructuous. In view of the fact that the defendants were threatening to disturb their possession and when in such circumstances an application was made for police help the learned Munsif ought to have allowed the application. It is true that for violation of the order of injunction the petitioners can take steps, but that would be only for the purpose of punishing the defendants. The adoption, of that procedure would not help the petitioners in cultivating the lands and to reap the benefits obtained by them by getting the order of injunction. In support of his contention, Mr. Chakra-borty refers to a decision reported in (1981) 85 Cal WN 958 (Saudamini Roy-chowdhury v. Satyendra Nath Sarkar). In this case, the petitioner got an order for temporary injunction in his favour. The opposite party went on with the construction work causing interference with the petitioner's possession. An application under S. 151 of the Code was filed by the plaintiff wherein it was prayed that police be directed to see that the order of injunction passed by the Court was not violated. Upon the Court rejecting the application, the petitioner came up to this Court. It was held in the facts and circumstances of the case that “the court had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and the impugned order could not be allowed to stand”. The court below was directed to pass appropriate directions upon the police as prayed for. In deciding the case His Lordship relied on a Bench decision reported in AIR 1971 Andh Pra 53 (Rayapati Andemma v. Pothineni Narasimham)
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that the learned Munsif rejected the application without any reason whatsoever and as such, he failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law.
4. In the result, the application is allowed. The order passed by the learned Munsif is set aside. The learned Munsif is directed to give appropriate directions upon the police as prayed for in the application filed by the petitioners under S. 151 of the Civil P.C within two weeks from the receipt of the order from this Court. There will be no order for costs in this application. The order may be communicated by a spl. messenger at the cost of the petitioners.
Application allowed.
Alert