Karnataka High Court
Rudrrappa S/O Layappa @ Harijan vs Riyaz Ahmed S/O Ibrahimsab Mamadapur & ... on 1 June, 2016
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION No.201716/2016 (GM-CPC)
Between:
Rudrappa S/o Layappa Kamble @ Harijan
Age: 66 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Lohagaon
Tq. & Dist. Vijayapur - 586 101.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Ashok S. Kinagi, Advocate)
And:
1. Riyaz Ahamed S/o Ibrahimsab Mamadapur
Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Jail Darga, Vijayapur-586 101.
2. Hanamant S/o Laxamappa @
Laxman Mamadapur
Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Lohagaon
Tq. & Dist. Vijayapur - 586 101. ... Respondents
********
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order on I.A.No.IV
dated 21.03.2016 passed in O.S.No.612/2015 by the
Principal Civil Judge, Vijayapur vide Annexure-L and
consequently reject the application filed by respondent No.1
and etc.
2
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner, Mr.Rudrappa, has challenged the legality of order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Principal Civil Judge Vijaypur, whereby the learned Civil Judge has directed the Circle Police Inspector, Rural Circle Vijaypur to implement his order dated 03.11.2015 and to give police help to the plaintiff Mr.Riyaz Ahamed.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Mr.Riyaz Ahamed had filed a civil suit, namely O.S.No.612/2015, against the petitioner, Mr.Rudrappa, and against respondent No.2, Mr.Hanamant, for permanent injunction. Along with the plaint Mr.Riyaz Ahamed had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. By order dated 03.11.2015, the learned Trial Court had allowed the temporary injunction application and had directed the petitioner not to disturb the plaintiff's 3 peaceful possession. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he had filed a Miscellaneous Appeal. However, by order dated 02.01.2016, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal, and confirmed the order dated 03.11.2015. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2016, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition is presently pending before this Court.
3. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of CPC, before the learned Trial Court and prayed for both police protection to his life, and to his property, and prayed that the police be directed to implement the order dated 03.11.2015 passed in his favour. The petitioner filed his objections to the said application. However, by order dated 21.03.2016, the learned Trial Court allowed the said application in the aforementioned terms. Hence, this petition before this Court.
4
4. Sri Ashok S.Kinagi, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that, in case the petitioner has violated the temporary injunction, the plaintiff had an alternate remedy of filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of CPC. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was not justified in directing the police to implement the order of temporary injunction. In order to support the said plea the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the case of Manchegowda and Another v. M.Madaiah [ 1987 (1) KAR 119 ].
5. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned order.
6. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the plaintiff had pleaded before the learned Trial Court that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are flauting the order dated 03.11.2015 as they are powerful men with political connection. The plaintiff 5 had also pleaded that both his life and property are in jeopardy. Therefore, he sought not only police protection, but also sought direction from the learned Trial Court for implementing the order dated 03.11.2015.
7. Once an order has been passed by the Trial Court injuncting the defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession of plaintiff, the Trial Court has inherent power to ensure the implementation of this injunction order.
8. Although, in the case of Manchegowda and Another (supra) this Court did hold that the Trial Court could not direct the police to implement the order of temporary injunction, but subsequently in the case of Papanna v. Nagachari and Others, [ 1996 (2) KAR L.J. 74 ] and in the case of Smt. Karisiddamma and Others v. Smt. Sanna Kenchamma, [ KCCR SN 170 ], this Court has clearly opined that the Trial Court has 6 inherent power under Section 151 of CPC, to ensure that its injunctory orders are duly implemented. Thus, the Trial Court can direct the police to ensure that the injunction order is carried out.
9. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the Trial Court is prevented from issuing any direction to the police for implementing the temporary injunction order. Such contention is belied by judgments of this Court in the case of Papanna (Supra) and in the case of Smt. Karisiddamma and Others (Supra).
10. For the reasons stated above this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr/-