KUTUBUDDIN Vs. HABIB KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order dated 7. 11. 85. Non-petitioner plaintiff was allowed to have the repairs of the damaged property on 22nd February, 1986. Order granting temporary injunction has become final and the defendant petitioners were prohibited by that order not to disturb the plaintiff-non-petitioner from carrying the necessary repairs. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the court that the plaintiff is not allowing the defendant to carry-out necessary repairs which are necessary for the purpose of residence and enjoyment of the leased property. Initially the application was rejected and subsequent application has been accepted vide impugned order.

(2.) IT is the duty of the court to see that the tenant enjoys the property and carries out without any obstruction the necessary for the enjoyment with this view in mind the court passed the temporary injunction on 22. 2. 86. Granting of a permission to the plaintiff non-petitioner to carry-out the necessary repairs implies that the defendant has been prohibited from interfering with the necessary repairs. Court below was justified in granting permission to carry-out necessary repairs in the light of the order dated 22. 2. 86. If the police assistance has not been given the order dated 22. 2. 86 will remain on paper and the plaintiff will get no remedy or no relief. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court can exercise powers under section 151 C. P. C. and the court has rightly exercised powers under section 151. Mr. P. D. Mathur submits that the doctrine of res judicata applies as earlier the application was rejected twice. Rejection of the application for police help is not a decision on merits of a case. In fact, grant of an application for police assistance is a step forwarded in the matter of implementation of the order dated 22. 2. 86.