Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
J. Jagannath Reddy vs L. Laxmi Devi (Smt.) And Ors. on 26 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)ALD453, 1998(1)ALT461
ORDER
1. The order of the learned District Munsif, Jadcherla on I.A.No.353 of 1997 in O.S.No. 25 of 1997 dated 17.11.1997 is questioned. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants.
2. The impugned order arose this way:
The plaintiff had obtained interim order of temporary injunction in his suit against the respondents. It came to be vacated. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the matter is pending in appeal. In the meanwhile, on behalf of the respondents herein I.A.No.353 of 1997 was filed under Section 151 CPC to grant police protection to them with the allegation that the plaintiff -petitioner was interfering with their possession regarding the suit property. The learned District Munsif passed the following order :
"Heard Counsel for the petitioners. In view of the fact that the injunction in favour of the respondent has been vacated holding that the respondent/ plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he is presently in possession of the suit house and it is alleged that the respondent/plaintiff is interfering with the possession of the defendants herein. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to safeguard their possession. The petition is accordingly allowed."
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that no such order could have been passed in favour of the respondents in whose favour there was no order to maintain. The respondents were attempted to be served with the notices of the petition but they refused. There is no representation for them.
4. The order of the learned District Munsif is not only illegal but also perverse. The order has proposed to protect the alleged possession of the respondents regarding the suit property regarding which there is no order passed except in the context of disposing of an Interlocutory Application for temporary injunction regarding which an appeal is said to be pending. Moreover, the entry of the police into the affairs of the parties after they approached the Civil Court is alien to civil law. If there is a finding as to possession of the properly and if anybody complains to the police that some other persons are trying to trespass into their property or committing any offence in relation to the possession of the property belonging to a particular individual, possibly, the police will take action according to law. If there is an order in the nature of injunction positively to protect the possession of a party to the case which if becomes executable can be dealt with in accordance with law under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure to deal with the violators either by attachment of property or by keeping any such persons in Civil Prison. The worst is such an order which is disobeyed or violated may amount to contempt of Court regarding which the procedure contemplated is totally different. Granting police protection under Section 151 C.P.C. in such a situation or in any other situation is never known in law. It is true that Section 151-C.P.C is a codification of civil justice in itself where the Court has got inherent Power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. Unless a situation depicts that the Court has to exercise such a power for the justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court, no order to ensure the ends of justice can be passed. The police protection for a person in possession or said to be in possession of a properly in a civil proceeding can never be the beginning or the end of justice. As every right determined will be capable of execution or enforcement according to procedure only or otherwise whenever there was a decree becomes in executable for various reasons, then, under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the order could have become enforceable with the police aid. Rule of Law Is the Role of Law and for the ends of justice. Any violation is the negation of justice, particularly when there was no order in favour of the respondents as to file possession to maintain positively, granting of police help under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure was an absurd legal result flowing from immaturity in the understanding of the matter and impropriety in the exercise of the power. Not only it amounts to excess exercise of power but also an incurable illegality. No inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised where there are specific provisions in the Code and in view of Order 21, Rule 32 CPC and the Contempt of Court Act, no such order under Section 151 CPC could have been passed, even assuming that there was a negative order in favour of the respondents which could be positively enforced or executed. Even the reasoning given by the learned District Munsif in the impugned order is not satisfactory. The order deserves to be set aside.
5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order of the learned District Munsif is set aside. No costs.