Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anusuyamma vs K D Rudresh on 22 July, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.6337 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Anusuyamma
W/o late Srikantaiah G.M.
Aged 71 years
2. G.S.Jagannath
S/o late Srikantaiah G.M.
Aged 49 years
Both are residing at
Goudra Beedhi
Channagiri Town
Channagiri Taluk - 577 213. ... Petitioners
(By Sri. Saritha Kulkarni, Advocate)
AND:
K.D.Rudresh
S/o Dummappa
Aged about 46 years
R/at Kurabara Beedhi
Behind Beeralingeshwara Temple
Channagiri Town
Channagiri Taluk - 577 213. ... Respondent
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 OF
Constitution Of India praying to set aside the order passed by
the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri dated
17.02.2020 in O.S.No.127/2019 vide Annexure-F and etc.,
2
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day,
through video conference the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge, JMFC, Channagiri dated 17.02.2020 in O.S.No.127/2019 passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking for the police protection for the implementation of the order passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C where under the trial Court after perusing the material on record came to a prima- facie conclusion that the petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule property had granted an order of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the trial Court had come to a prima-facie conclusion that the petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule property, however, the trial Court restrained itself from coming to the aid of the petitioners by ordering for 3 police protection and keeping the application in abeyance on the ground that the actual possession of the petitioners has to be established during the course of the trial.
3. Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Papanna Vs. Nagachari reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1271 more particularly at para No.8 thereof would contend that once a trial Court has passed an order of injunction, it is a bounden duty on part of the trial Court to implement the said order which in this case can only be done by a direction being issued to the police authorities. She further submits that the trial Court ought not to have kept the said application under abeyance which would in effect result in negativing the order passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and or make such an order of injunction a paper order, without teeth.
4. This Court by its order dated 24.06.2020 considering the gravity of the matter and also considering the sanctity attached to an order passed by a Court, 4 directed the jurisdictional police to give protection to the petitioners to cultivate and enjoy the suit schedule property without any interference by the respondent till next date of hearing.
5. It is aggrieved by the same that the respondent has filed I.A.No.1/2020 seeking for vacating the order dated 24.06.2020. The hearing and disposal of the said IA would infact touch upon the merits of the matter and as such with the consent of both the parties the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
6. Sri. B.S.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the order dated 24.06.2020 is in the nature of an interim order and as such, the direction to the police issued being in nature of the final order could not have been so granted. He further submits that the respondent has produced enough and more documents to establish that the defendant is in possession of suit schedule property and as such, under the guise of I.A.No.3 filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking for police protection, the 5 petitioners are seeking to take possession of the property.
7. On enquiry, Sri. B.S.Murali, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order of trial Court passed on I.A.No.1 has been assailed by the respondent in M.A.No.1/2020 which is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Channagiri. However, on account of the said miscellaneous appeal being filed belatedly, notice has been ordered on condonation of delay of application and the respondent therein is yet to appear in the matter. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the order passed on I.A.No.1 by the trial Court continues to be valid and subsisting and unless set aside the parties are bound by it.
8. As held by this Court in the case of Papanna Vs. Nagachari reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1271, the mere fact that there is a provision under Order 39 Rule 2(a) for taking action for disobedience of an order of temporary injunction, does not come in the way of the plaintiff from taking steps to see that the order is implemented. If the Court had no power to implement 6 its own orders then there is no purpose in the Court passing any interim order and then stating that the plaintiff has a remedy under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of C.P.C.
9. I am of the considered opinion that the remedy provided under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of C.P.C. is not an efficacious remedy. However, the same would always exist as a parallel remedy for the violation already committed by the defendant of any order passed by the trial Court. The punishment for any violation provided under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of C.P.C. would not come in the way of the Court implementing the order passed by the trial Court, since, other wise, no order of any Court would be given effect to or be capable of being implemented. The remedy provided under Order 39 Rule 2(a) of C.P.C is for violations already committed, that is for the past, whereas the power to direct implementation of the injunctive order already granted through police protection or otherwise is to prevent any future default.
7
10. In view of the above finding, though there is an appeal in MA.No.1/2020 which is pending, since the respondent has not been diligent enough to get the same posted and prosecute the same, the order passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. continuous to be valid, subsisting and binding on the parties, the said order requires to be implemented.
11. The present writ petition would therefore, be required to be allowed and as such, the jurisdictional police are directed to implement the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Channagiri in O.S.No.127/2019 dated 29.11.2019 and in terms thereof protect the possession of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property from any interference by the respondent herein.
12. Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage submits that though an interim direction has issued on 24.06.2020, the jurisdictional police have not complied with the same. Hence the Jurisdictional Police authorities are once again directed to strictly comply with the order passed by this Court 8 dated 24.06.2020 as also today. In the event of any violation thereof, the petitioners would always be at liberty to bring the contents of this order to the notice of the superiors of the station house officer as also initiate contempt proceedings not only against the respondent but also against concerned authorities and officials. Accordingly, the writ petition disposed of. Parties shall bear their own cost.
Sd/-
JUDGE KTY/NR