FATEH SINGH Vs. DEVI DITTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AD interim injunction arising out of a Civil Original Suit passed way back in the year 2000 on 1st January by the learned Munsiff, Udhampur was made absolute on 21 -5 -2007. Although order is amenable to the appellate jurisdiction but the petitioners in their own wisdom appear to have chosen not to challenge it, consequently yet another motion by the beneficiary of the interim injunction before the same Court seeking police protection essentially for its implementation which came to be allowed by the court below vide its order dated 23rd of August 2007. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have questioned both the orders granting police protection as also the interim injunction. It goes without saying that there cannot be two opinions about the availability of the power of the Court to grant police protection but it has to be borne in mind that such power cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The Court has to pass a reasoned and speaking order. The impugned order is speaking one, which in the given facts of the case is not uncalled for. Situated thus interference is declined.

(2.) NEXT it was contended by Mr. Manhas that survey number 944 is not the subject matter of the suit. The contention needs to be appreciated in the light of the pleadings which are not placed on the record by the Petitioners and the original record I am not inclined to summon because that is certainly going to delay the termination of the main lis, therefore I dont want to deal with the contention. I am prompted to take the view aforementioned because of yet another reason that it is an error which can be corrected by the court below without losing any time and to do substantial justice between the parties the trial Court is directed to withdraw the police assistance forthwith in respect of survey number 944 in case it is not subject matter of the suit.

(3.) THIS brings me to the petitioners grouse registered against interim injunction but I refuse to exercise revisionary jurisdiction because of availability of alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal, immaterial that they have not availed the same as on date. Nevertheless any observation made herein shall not prevent them from filing appeal. To avoid any misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the observation let it be clear that if appeal is filed, its maintainability shall be examined by the appellate court on the touchstone of law and on its merits uninfluenced by this judgment.