Court Cannot Direct Police To Ascertain Actual On-Ground Situation In Application For Police Assistance: HP High Court

Mehak Aggarwal

12 Aug 2025 6:15 PM IST

  • Court Cannot Direct Police To Ascertain Actual On-Ground Situation In Application For Police Assistance: HP High Court

    The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a court, while deciding an application for police assistance, can only grant or refuse such assistance for implementing its order and cannot direct police officers to ascertain the actual situation on the spot.Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “….by no stretch of imagination in such an application, the Court can direct an Officer or...

    The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a court, while deciding an application for police assistance, can only grant or refuse such assistance for implementing its order and cannot direct police officers to ascertain the actual situation on the spot.

    Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked 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.”

    In a civil suit pending before the Additional District Judge, Una, the Trial Court had allowed an application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking enforcement of a status quo order.

    The Trial Court allowed the application and directed: “Let reference be made to the concerned SHO to visit the spot and ascertain the actual situation on spot regarding the uprooting of latrine bathroom, forthwith as per the orders of this Court”

    Aggrieved by this, the petitioners challenged the trial court's order, contending that the trial court's directive requiring the SHO to ascertain facts on the ground amounted to collecting evidence in favour of the opposite party, which was impermissible.

    The High Court allowed the petition and held that the trial court could not have allowed such an application, which allowed collection of evidence in favour of one party and prejudice to the other.

    Case Name: Sh. Kishori Lal and another v/s Smt.Darshna Devi

    Case No.: CMPMO No. 76 of 2025

    Date of Decision: 07.08.2025

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

    For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Dhanotia Advocate

    Click Here To Read/Download Order


    Next Story