KESHWANAND Vs. LALMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 16.10.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application under S.151 CPC, having been filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 (hereinafter, 'defendant'), seeking therein police assistance to restrain the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter, 'plaintiffs') from causing any interference in his peaceful possession and for issuance of a direction to remove the lock allegedly put by the plaintiffs on the room possessed by the defendant, came to be dismissed, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? defendant has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Facts, as emerge from the record are that in a suit for declaration having been filed by the plaintiffs, Lok Adalat held on 23.11.2013, ordered the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property, however, despite status quo order, plaintiffs forcibly put lock on the room in question. Since, despite repeated requests, plaintiffs failed to open the lock of the room, defendant was compelled to move the application referred to herein above, seeking therein police protection and direction to remove lock allegedly put by the plaintiffs, however, the fact remains that the application was dismissed by the learned Court below vide order dated 16.10.2017. Learned Court below, while passing order dated 16.10.2017, returned the finding that the defendant was unable to show that at the time of passing of order dated 23.11.2013, i.e. when status quo was ordered, he was in possession of the room in question.

(3.) Careful perusal of communication dated 31.8.2017, which has been otherwise taken note of by the learned Court below in the impugned order, suggests that till 31.7.2017, room in question was in possession of the Anganwari Centre and on 31.7.2017, same was vacated and till then rent was being paid to the defendant, as has been stated by Ms. Reena, in the aforesaid communication. Since in the aforesaid communication, Ms. Reena, has categorically stated that she did not know that who was owner of the room in question when she vacated the premises, court below ought to have afforded an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence to prove their possession. But, in the case at hand, learned Court below, without assigning any cogent and convincing reason, proceeded to arrive at a conclusion that no document has been placed on record by the defendant to prove that at the time of passing of the status quo order on 23.11.2013, he was in possession of the room in question, whereas, communication dated 31.8.2017, which has been discussed herein above suggests otherwise.