Karnataka High Court
M.S. Mahadevaprasad And Others vs Mahadevaiah And Others on 17 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: ILR2001KAR462, 2001(1)KARLJ23
ORDER
1. This revision petition is against an order refusing to render police help for enforcement of the order passed by the Court earlier. The reason given by the Trial Court is unacceptable and it is settled principle of law that police help is a must. In fact the Trial Court itself has referred to the following dictum in Narasimhappa v Hanumanthappa, which is as follows:
"If there is order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendants violate the order of injunction, there is appropriate provision in the Code for taking action against the persons violating the order of the Court. Hence, the Court is not right in directing the police to implement the order of temporary injunction. The police are not the authorities to enforce the order of the Court".
The Calcutta High Court in the case in Mrs. Ajit Kumar Ray v Jnanendra Nath Dey and Others, has observed that the prayer for police help may be made by the decree-holder either in an application under Rule 97 or 98 of Order 21 of the CPC, separately without filing such application, or before any specific obstruction made by a particular person.
This Court in Papanna v Nagachari and Others, has also been relied on the law as follows:
"When the Court has prima facie considered the matter and has granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff after hearing the defendant, the Court has to enforce the same and the contention of the defendant that he is in possession, cannot be accepted at this stage... If the Court had no power to implement its own orders, then there is no purpose in the Courts passing orders in matters coming before them. The remedy under Order 39, Rule 2(a) is not exhaustive and Court can pass appropriate orders to see that its orders are enforced. In necessary cases, even the police can be directed to enforce the orders of the Court".
2. The Trial Court held that there is a provision under Order 39, Rule 2-A for proceeding against the defendant for violation of the orders. But that is not sufficient to protect the possession, which he seeks to safeguard under the order of injunction granted in his favour by the Court.
3. In this view, setting aside the order of the Trial Court, the revision is allowed and the I.A. filed for police help is allowed. No costs.