Inherent civil court powers can protect settled co-sharer possession and restore status quo during partition disputes.

A civil court may invoke inherent powers under the Code of Civil Procedure to protect a co-sharer's settled specific possession during pending partition proceedings. Where parties have mutually been in separate occupation of distinct flats, and one side interferes by obstructing that possession, the court is not confined to Order 39 relief alone. Section 151 can support a mandatory direction to remove an obstruction such as a padlock and to prevent further interference when the foundational facts of possession are admitted or otherwise clearly established. The principle is that a co-sharer in settled possession cannot be unlawfully dispossessed by another co-sharer while litigation is pending.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a partition dispute between co-sharers who had mutually been in separate occupation of distinct flats, the court could direct removal of a padlock and restrain further obstruction by exercising inherent powers under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The parties had themselves ed that, by mutual arrangement, they were in separate possession of different flats. On the facts, the first respondent was found to be in possession of flat No. 201, and the appellants had allegedly interfered with that possession by putting a padlock. The power to grant injunction is not confined to Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Section 151 preserves the court's inherent power to pass orders necessary to prevent abuse of process and to restore the parties to their prior position where one party has taken the law into its own hands during pending litigation. Since the foundational facts justifying protection of possession were established and admitted to a material extent, the direction to remove the padlock and prevent further obstruction was held to be legally sustainable.

Conclusion: The mandatory direction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was valid, and the challenge to the order of the trial court failed.

Final Conclusion: A co-sharer in settled specific possession cannot be unlawfully dispossessed by another co-sharer during pendency of proceedings, and the court may invoke its inherent jurisdiction to restore and protect that possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The inherent powers of the civil court may be invoked to grant mandatory protection of possession and to restore status quo where a party to pending litigation has unlawfully interfered with the settled specific possession of a co-sharer.

---