Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel has quashed an order of a subordinate court which had directed the police to visit a site and ascertain factual conditions, holding that such directions amounted to collection of evidence in favour of one party. The court has remanded the matter back to the subordinate court with instructions to decide the application afresh, strictly in accordance with the prayer made therein, and without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court.

The matter arose from a civil dispute wherein the respondent had filed an application before the trial court seeking police assistance to enforce a status quo order previously passed in her favour under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application sought that the police be directed to visit the spot and stop the respondents from engaging in alleged illegal acts over the suit land. The trial court, in its order dated 27 January 2025, allowed the application and directed the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned to visit the spot, ascertain the actual situation regarding the uprooting of a latrine and bathroom, and to take necessary assistance from revenue authorities to ascertain the location of the suit land. A report was to be submitted to the court by 28 February 2025.

Also Read: Motor Accidents | Passengers Accompanying Goods Not Gratuitous | Insurer Of Registered Owner Liable If Registration Not Changed After Transfer: Supreme Court

The petitioners challenged this order before the High Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial court’s order was perverse, as there was no violation of the status quo order by the petitioners, and that the court erred in directing the SHO to perform acts amounting to collection of evidence in favour of the respondent. It was contended that such an order exceeded the permissible scope of an application for police assistance.

The respondent’s counsel countered that there was no perversity in the trial court’s order, as the SHO’s visit was necessary to ascertain whether the status quo order had been violated.

The High Court examined the application filed before the trial court and noted that it merely sought police assistance for enforcement of the status quo order. The operative part of the trial court’s order, however, went further, directing the SHO to ascertain the actual situation on the spot and involving the revenue authorities.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel recorded that “in an application filed seeking police assistance, all that the Court can order is grant or refusal of police assistance for the implementation of the order.” The court further stated that “by no stretch of imagination in such an application, the Court can direct an Officer or Official of a Department, may be the Police Department, to visit the spot and ascertain the actual situation on the spot, as has been done in the present case by the learned Court below.”

The judgment also noted that “No order can be passed by a learned Court in such an application, which would amount to collection of evidence in favour of a party to the prejudice of the other party. The Court has to restrict itself to the prayer made in the application and pass orders strictly in consonance thereof. Any deviation therefrom would obviously endanger the veracity of the order.”

Also Read: Madras High Court Acquits Man In Section 354 IPC Case | Pulling Woman’s Hands May Shock Decency But Without Criminal Intent It’s Not Outraging Modesty

Applying these principles, the High Court found that the trial court was not justified in passing the impugned order. The directions given went beyond the scope of the application and effectively required the police to collect evidence, which was impermissible.

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 27 January 2025 of the Civil Judge, Court No. III, Amb, District Una in Civil Suit No. 235-I of 2024, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh decision. The court directed that the application be decided afresh “strictly in consonance with the prayers made therein.” It also ordered that while deciding the application, the trial court “will not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in this petition.”

The High Court further directed that any interim order in the matter stands vacated forthwith, and that any pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate.

Case Title: Sh. Kishori Lal and another vs. Smt. Darshna Devi

Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:26802

Case Number: CMPMO No. 76 of 2025

Bench: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel