MANOHAR LAL Vs. VIJAY PATHANIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are defendants in the trial Court. They are legal heirs of deceased defendant Manohar Lal. Petitioners-defendants are owner of shop situate in Mohal and Mauza Shekhupur, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. Their predecessor-in-interest, deceased Manohar Lal had executed an agreement Ext. P-1 to this petition and thereby rented out the shop to respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) for a period of five years. The rent as agreed upon was Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid in advance to deceased Manohar Lal in lumpsum as he was in need of money. It was agreed upon that this amount was to be refunded by the defendants to the plaintiff within a period of five years and the plaintiff to hand over the possession of the shop back to said Sh. Manohar Lal. However, dispute qua repayment of Rs. 1,00,000/- and handing over the vacant possession of the shop arose between the parties. The matter was taken to local Gram Panchayat. The agreement/compromise Ext. P-2 to this petition was arrived at before the Gram Panchayat, however, the same seems to be not acted upon and the plaintiff has filed the suit for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing him from the shop in dispute, otherwise than in due course of law. In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned trial Court has admittedly restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the shop in dispute, otherwise than in due course of law.

(2.) It is during the currency of the interim injunction so granted, defendant Manohar Lal has committed suicide on 21.07.2015 and the allegations were leveled against the plaintiff that it is, he who abetted the commission of suicide by said Sh. Manohar Lal as the later allegedly was being tortured by the former and it is for this reason, he committed suicide. The local residents seems to have protested against the commission of suicide of said Sh. Manohar Lal and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur had to intervene in the matter with the assistance of local police. The SubDivisional Magistrate initiated the proceedings under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and finding apprehension of breach of peace, locked the disputed shop under his supervision. The respondentplaintiff allegedly approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to unlock the shop and handing over possession thereof to him. The interim order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Indora, District Kangra was also brought to the notice of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but of no avail. The respondent-plaintiff was, therefore, forced to file an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which came to be registered as CMA No. 71 of 2016 in the pending civil suit. The Court below has not only taken on record the response of the petitioners-defendants, but also that of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nurpur to the application.

(3.) While the claim of the plaintiff is that the SubDivisional Magistrate has locked the shop in violation of the interim order passed by the civil Court, the response of the petitioners-defendants and also that of the SubDivisional Magistrate is that since Sh. Manohar Lal has committed suicide and it is the plaintiff who allegedly abetted the commission of suicide by him, therefore, there was apprehension of breach of peace and that the only alternative was to put the disputed shop under lock and key.