RATNABAI Vs. SATWARAO S O NARAYANRAO NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE was obtained at the instance of the applicants/original defendants and is directed against the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Pusad, below Exh. 13 i. e. the application for grant of Police Aid filed by the opposite party i. e. the respondent/applicant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 1st of December, 1993.

(2.) THE applicants are the appellants in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 10/93 and also the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 102/93 pending before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. , Pusad. The Regular Civil Suit is filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for declaration and temporary injunction against the applicant/defendants Smt. Ratnabai w/o Narayanrao Naik and her son Girish s/o Narayanrao Naik, contending that he is the owner of area admeasuring 0. 70 Hectors out of survey No. 1 situated at Mouza Dhansala, Tah. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. The applicant/original defendant Smt. Ratnabai is a step-mother of the respondent/plaintiff Shri Satwarao Naik and the applicant/ original defendant No. 2 is the step brother of the respondent/ plaintiff Satwarao Naik. According to the respondent/plaintiff Shri Satwarao Narayanrao Naik the land in suit had fallen to his share under the partition in the family as early as in the year 1959. It is stated at bar that the deceased Narayanrao Naik had left huge property behind him and the applicants/original defendants as also the respondent/plaintiff are in possession of the properties left by deceased Narayanrao. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he is in cultivating possession of the suit land and the applicants/defendants always are trying to disturb his cultivating possession and, therefore, the respondent/plaintiff was constrained to file the Regular Civil Suit No. 102/93 against the applicants/defendants. A separate application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the applicants from interfering with his possession over the suit property was filed vide Exh. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, considering the documents filed by both the parties to support the rival contentions, the learned trial Court found that the respondent/plaintiff proved his prima facie possession and consequently granted temporary injunction against the applicants/original defendants by its order dtd. 3/04/1993.

(3.) THE respondent/original plaintiff specifically contended that he is in cultivating possession of the suit and since long and in view of the order of injunction passed by the learned trial Court on 3/04/1993, the applicants/defendants cannot disturb the possession unless the order is vacated by the learned trial Court or got stayed the operation and effect of the order of injunction granted by the learned trial Court on 3/04/1993. The respondent/ applicant filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Exh. 13 on 22-10-1993 for Police Aid in order to protect his possession over the disputed suit land. It is specifically stated by the respondent/plaintiff that since before the order was passed on the injunction application by the learned trial Court, the original defendants with their associates used to disturb the possession of the plaintiff and also extended threats to destroy the crops as also to his life. Even after the injunction order was passed on 3/04/1993, the applicants/original defendants continued their activities of disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and extending threats to the person and life of the respondent/plaintiff. On many occasions, the respondent/plaintiff reported the matter to the Police but no action had ever been taken by Police to safeguard the person and property of the respondent/ plaintiff. Lastly on 19-10-1993 when the non-applicant/plaintiff had been to cut the spike of Jawar, the applicants/original defendants with their supporters entered the field and extended threats not to take away the crop. While leaving the field in suit the original defendants extended threats to the plaintiff that in case he cut the spike of Jawar, he will be done away with life. Consequently, he reported the matter to the Police. Under the circumstances, to protect the possession and standing crop, the plaintiff applied for Police Aid. The original defendants by their reply Exh. 18, resisted the application on the grounds that the contents of the application for Police Aid are totally false and deserve to be dismissed. It is stated at bar by the learned counsel for the applicants/original defendants, an application for Police Aid was also filed by the plaintiff on 27/04/1993. To that application too the, reply was filed. However, the respondent/plaintiff has withdrawn that application. In the application Exh. 13 which is filed on 22-10-93, same relief being sought, the same deserves to be dismissed. The learned District Judge on hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the application for Police Aid on payment of necessary process. The instant Revision Application is filed against this order dtd. 1/12/1993.