Court cannot invoke Section 151 CPC to allow property repairs without prima facie findings on possession.

The Respondents (Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 02 of 2022) filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) before the Civil Judge, Jorethang, seeking permission for urgent repairs and the construction of a temporary tin roof over the suit property.

The Petitioners (Defendants) contested the application, asserting they were in actual possession and that the property required no repairs.

The Trial Court allowed the Respondents' prayer, effectively granting them permission to alter the structure.

The Petitioners challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that such an order implicitly (and prematurely) decided the issue of possession in favor of the Respondents.

1. Whether the Trial Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to allow structural repairs without a prima facie finding on possession.

2. Whether the invocation of Section 151 CPC was warranted for property repairs without objective verification of the necessity of such repairs.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the inherent powers of the court, noting that such powers are reserved for "extreme circumstances" and cannot be invoked in a "routine manner".

Article 227 of the Constitution of India regarding supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that interlocutory orders do not unsettle the substantive claims of parties regarding possession of the suit property.

The High Court observed that the Trial Court’s order permitting construction amounted to a de facto admission that the Respondents were in possession.

The Court reasoned that such a significant order should not have been passed without at least a prima facie finding on the status of possession.

The Court held that the "intention" of protective orders should be to preserve the property without prejudicing the final outcome of the suit.

To resolve the factual dispute regarding the necessity of repairs, the Court determined that the Trial Court should have sought an objective assessment via an Advocate Commissioner rather than relying solely on the Plaintiffs' assertions.

The Court directed the Trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for a local inspection to verify the need for repairs.

It held that if repairs are later permitted based on the report, such permission shall not confer any right of possession upon the Respondents, as possession remains an issue to be decided during the trial.

The petition was disposed of with these directions.