w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Mangilal v/s Ichku Devi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- DEVI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U16000AP2011PTC076133

    Civil Revision Petition No. 942 of 1995

    Decided On, 27 April 1998

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PANA CHAND JAIN

    For the Appellant: K.C. Samdariya, Advocate. For the Respondents: B.M. Bohra, Advocate.



Judgment Text

P.C. Jain, J.

1. This is defendant-petitioner's revision petition filed against the order dated 4-8-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sojat in Civil Misc. Case No. 70/95.

2. The dispute between the parties is with regard to a 4-5 ft. wide land existing between their houses. The case of the non-petitioners-plaintiffs is that the above land is meant for discharge of rain water. The plaintiff also uses his gate "X" for going into his nohra for the purpose of keeping his cattle, fodder etc. The gate "X" is situated towards the north of the lane. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant wanted to usurp the land and in order to achieve the above object, has created the disturbances. He has erected a thorn fence and also collected stones and made a kachha wall in order to obstruct the above gate of the plaintiff. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-non-petitioners also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Notice of the application was issued to defendant-petitioner. The trial Court also appointed a Commissioner to inspect the site and submit a report. The Court passed an order on 21-12-1994 for maintaining the status quo. The plaintiffs moved an application on 21-2-1994 under Order 39, Rule 2-A read with Section 151, C.P.C. in which a complaint was made that the defendant-petitioner has disobeyed the order passed by the Court on 21-2-1994 for maintaining the status quo. It was alleged by the plaintiff that after passing of the order dated 21-12-1994, the defendant-petitioner has erected a thorn fence and also a temporary wall of stones and obstructed the gate through which the plaintiffs used to enter into his nohra. On 2-8-1995, the plaintiffs also moved an application u/s 151, C.P.C. praying for the removal of the above obstruction. In other words, the plaintiffs prayed for injunction in the mandatory form. The plaintiffs prayed that the above obstruction-be removed with the help of the police. The defendant-petitioner was given notice. The defendant denied to have created any obstruction as alleged by the plaintiffs. It was further stated by the defendant-petitioner that the plaintiffs never used the nohra gate inasmuch as the plaintiffs has got a separate gate of his use. The thorn fence ,was erected by the plaintiffs himself. The Court again appointed a Commissioner who inspected the site and submitted his report on 26-2-1995. In the report, the Commissioner has stated that he tried to give notice to the defendant-petitioner but the latter refused to receive the same. The Commissioner has stated in the report that near the gate "X", a temporary wall or chabutra has been erected with stones and at place "Z", in-front-of the gate of the plaintiff, a thorn fence was also found. According to the report of the Commissioner, the gate "X" of the nohra of the plaintiff has been obstructed. After considering the report of the Commissioner and taking stock of the whole situation, the Court felt persuaded to allow the application of the plaintiff and made an order to the Assistant Nazir to remove the above obstructions with the help of the police. In compliance of the above order, the Assistant Nazir, with the help of the police, removed the obstructions and submitted his report dated 7-8-1995. According to the report submitted by the Assistant Nazir, he found a kachhachabutra on the land as also the thorn fence. He removed the above obstructions with the help of the police.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the above order on the ground that the learned Civil Judge has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order for removal of the chabutra which was not a new one but an old one and was existing even at the time of filing of the suit by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court ought to have made a complete and satisfactory inquiry about the allegations made by the plaintiffs regarding the obstruction created by the defendant. Only a notice was given to the petitioner-defendant and no inquiry was made. The report of the Commissioner is also partisan and prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was not associated with the inspection made by the Commissioner. It was not at all proved that the petitioner erected the chabutra and the thorn fence in defiance of the status quo order passed by the Court on 21-12-1994. The gate "X" shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint was never used by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have been using another gate. Hence the allegations made by the plaintiffs for causing obstructions was not tenable and no irreparable loss was caused to the plaintiffs by the alleged obstructions. The learned trial Court further erred in entertaining the application moved by the plaintiffs u/s 151, C.P.C. when the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39, Rules 2-A, C.P.C. was pending decision.

5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners has supported the impugned order on the ground that from the two reports of the Commissioner, it was apparent that after passing of the status quo order by the Court on 21 -12-1994, the petitioner erected a stone platform and also thorn fence in-front-of the gate of the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court did not commit any error in acting on the report of the Commissioner and giving prompt relief to the plaintiffs which was necessitated in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the gate "X" was totally obstructed by the acts of the defendant-petitioner. He has placed reliance on Mr. Thakur Das v. Harijan Sudhar Samiti 1995 C C 337 (P & H) in which the Punjab and Haryana High Court has laid down that when respondent was trying to obstruct petitioner's right under injunction order, the petitioner moved trial Court for police help but his request was declined by the trial Court. It was held that the learned Judge should have issued instructions to the police to help the petitioner to act in terms of injunction order.

6. I have considered the rival contentions. It is not disputed that the Court passed an order maintaining the status quo on 21-12-1994. The above order was passed by the Court after taking into consideration the report of the Commissioner that was appointed by the Court before issuing the above order. Thereafter the plaintiffs made a complaint of defiance of the Court order and moved an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. against the petitioner. That application is still pending decision. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs also moved an application u/s 151, C.P.C. praying for removing the obstructions which were placed by the petitioner-defendant obstructing the paces of the plaintiffs. The trial Court again appointed a Commissioner. In the report, the Commissioner has stated that he tried to associate the petitioner with the inspection but the latter refused to take notice. The Commissioner, therefore, had to inspect the site and submit the report. From the report of the Commissioner, it is apparent that he found Kachha stone platform. When the Court considered the two reports of the Commissioners, it was apparent that the above obstructions were placed after the issuance of the Court order maintaining the status quo. The existence of gate "X" which opens in the nohra of the plaintiffs is not denied. When the plaintiff has got a gate "X" in his nohra, he has got every right to use the same and if any obstruction has been placed, he can also pray the Court for its removal if necessary even with the help of the police, which was exactly done by the trial Court. The trial Court, in my opinion, has not committed any error because the impugned order was passed on the basis of the repo

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rts of the Commissioners. I agree with the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that in such a situation, the Court, u/s 151, C.P.C., can order removal of obstructions even with the help of the police. I do not find any substance in the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such an action u/s 151, C.P.C. could not have been taken when the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. was pending. The mattor covered by such an application is entirely different and the relief given invoking the powers conferred by Section 151, C.P.C. is entirely different. The exigency of the situation justified the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 151, C.P.C. for removing the obstructions even with the help of the police. 7. For the above reasons, 1 do not find any substance in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

30-06-2020 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jaipur & Others Versus Manju Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 Bhagwati Devi Versus Suritram (Dead) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-06-2020 Dr. Manoj Kr. Bhagat Versus Masomat Kanchan Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Most. Dhanwanti Devi & Others Versus Sanjharo Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-06-2020 Samri Devi Shaw Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus Aasha Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Munni Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-06-2020 Sheelender Kumar Gupta & Another Versus Mahaviri Devi (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. High Court of Delhi
08-06-2020 Geeta Devi Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-06-2020 Renu Devi & Another Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
28-05-2020 Most. Ahilya Devi @ Ahilya Devi Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-05-2020 Manju Devi Versus Board of Revenue Allahabad & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
21-05-2020 Savitri Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
20-05-2020 Aasha Devi Versus Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Ltd through its Managing Director, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-05-2020 Inder Singh Versus Savitri Devi High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Gopi Chand Versus Geeta Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
15-04-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Mohani Devi & Another Supreme Court of India
23-03-2020 Damyanti Devi Versus Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-03-2020 Uma Devi Versus The State Govt of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Satya Devi Versus State of HP & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
18-03-2020 Surendra Kumar Versus Phulwanti Devi High Court of Rajasthan
18-03-2020 Dr. Nirmala Devi, Obstetrician & Gynecologist, Assitant Professor Versus Chandrakanta National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Khushboo Devi Versus Indranil Ray Chowdhury & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
10-03-2020 G. Uma Devi & Another Versus M. Krishnamurthy Reddiar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Versus Jayanti Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-03-2020 M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Versus S. Ambika Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Sakuntala Devi Versus Dr. Md. Mumtaz Alam & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 M. Vanaja Versus M. Sarla Devi (Dead) Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Poonam Devi & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Tulsa Devi Nirola & Others Versus Radha Nirola & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Ambika Singh (since deceased) represented by legal representatives & Others Versus Mosomat Sohagi Devi (since deceased) represented by her legal heirs & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-03-2020 Saraswati Devi Versus Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & Others High Court of Jharkhand
28-02-2020 Sandhya Devi @ Sandhya Goyal Versus State High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Devi & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Tvl. Trust Metal, Rep. by its Proprietrix Bhagwanti Devi Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT), Moore Market (South) Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Karmi Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 Devi Versus Narayanan @ Alagappan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-02-2020 Shyam Sundar Dhal Versus Sharada Devi Bubna & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-02-2020 Golkonda Uma Devi Versus Enti Manjula & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-02-2020 ITC Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, V.M. Rajasekharan Versus Shree Devi Match Industries, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Sujatha Devi Akondi & Others Versus M/s. Safeway InfraRep By Its Managing Partner Ivsn Raju, Hyderabad & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Mala Devi Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Medical & Health Lko. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Ratna Devi Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-02-2020 Manju Devi Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-02-2020 Kiran Devi Agrawal & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-02-2020 A. Sakunthala Devi Versus The Registrar General, High Court, Madras & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Vidya Devi & Another Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
30-01-2020 Urmila Devi & Others Versus Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Shakuntala Devi Jan Kalyan Samiti Through Secy. & Others Versus State of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-01-2020 Kirpal Singh & Others Versus Kamla Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Kashmira Devi Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 Manokamini Devi Versus Ashok Kumar High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-01-2020 C. Sarojini Devi Versus The Director of Local Fund Audits, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 K.S. Rema Devi, Accountant, Azhoor-Muttappalam Service Co-Operative Bank, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Kerala Co-Operative Service Examination Board, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvannathapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-01-2020 Sumitra Devi (Female) Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-01-2020 State of AP Versus Devi Engineering & Construction High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-01-2020 Neelam Devi Versus State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-01-2020 Shunti Devi Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
16-01-2020 Guriya Devi Versus State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-01-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Versus Satya Devi & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
10-01-2020 In Goods of Late Sandhaya Devi Versus ----------- High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-01-2020 Deedar Devi Versus Jhabarmal Sheshma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
08-01-2020 Vidya Devi Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
08-01-2020 J. Nirmala Devi & Others Versus The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vijayawada-Dharmapuri Pipeline project, Rep., by its General Manager, Mumbai & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-01-2020 Usha Devi Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
07-01-2020 Rajesh Sakuja Versus Asha Devi Chouhan & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-01-2020 J.S. Sharma & Sons Versus Shiv Devi Meena High Court of Delhi
06-01-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Munni Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
06-01-2020 The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary (Revenue), Government of Tripura, Agartala & Others VersusBibhu Kumari Devi & Others High Court of Tripura
06-01-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Munni Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
03-01-2020 Shyamala Devi Versus The Regional Manager, Regional Office, State Bank of India, Region – IV, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 B.K. Usha Devi & Others V/S Punjab National Bank by its General Manager Head Office, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-01-2020 Nandini Devi Versus District Registrar, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-12-2019 Sheela Devi Versus State of H.P. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-12-2019 Milap Devi Jain & Others Versus Bank of Baroda & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad
20-12-2019 Anjali Devi & Others Versus Govindu & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 Jatinder Singh Versus Suman Devi High Court of Punjab and Haryana
16-12-2019 New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Narmada Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
16-12-2019 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Srimati Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
16-12-2019 Urmila Devi & Others Versus Superintendent of Police & Others High Court of Jharkhand
12-12-2019 Kalan Devi Versus Munshi Ram High Court of Himachal Pradesh
11-12-2019 Arti Devi Versus Jawaharlal Nehru University High Court of Delhi
11-12-2019 Puspalata Devi Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager (P), Maligaon, Guwahati & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
09-12-2019 Pushpa Devi Versus Hanuman Ram High Court of Rajasthan
09-12-2019 Surya Prakash & Another Versus Renuka Devi & Another High Court of Karnataka
05-12-2019 Laxmi Devi Versus Suresh Mendiratta High Court of Delhi
04-12-2019 Union of India & Others Versus Navindra Devi Supreme Court of India
03-12-2019 Krishna Devi & Others Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
27-11-2019 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Versus Sunita Devi Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
21-11-2019 B. Booma Devi & Others Versus The District Collector, Kancheepuram District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-11-2019 A. Ashraf Ali & Others Versus B.S. Susheela Devi & Others High Court of Karnataka
20-11-2019 Ram Avtar Bairwa Versus Sunita Devi @ Santra High Court of Delhi
19-11-2019 Bhagwan Das Bhajanka (Deceased) Through His Lrs. Versus Bimala Devi Goyal Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Parul Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-11-2019 M/s. Sri Devi Karumariamman Educational Trust, Represented by its Trustee J. Kumaran, Chennai Versus Indian bank, Represented by its Assistant General Manager, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 Sahara India & Another Versus Basmati Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-11-2019 Chandrawati Devi & Another Versus Sharda Gupta & Others High Court of Sikkim
07-11-2019 Thounaojam (N) Huidrom (o) Shantibala Devi Versus Huidrom Dwijendra Singh High Court of Manipur


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box