Karnataka High Court
Mr Suresh Poojary vs Smt Rajeshwari on 20 August, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32267
WP No. 7737 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 7737 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. SURESH POOJARY
S/O. SIDDU POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND EDEN CLUB,
PADAVU VILLAGE AND POST,
MANGALURU TALUK
D K DISTRICT - 575 005
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT RAJESHWARI
W/O PRAMOD HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT THIRUMALA
Digitally signed OPPOSITE BEJAI CHURCH HALL,
by NAGAVENI BEJAI MANGALURU
Location: HIGH D K DISTRICT - 575 004
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 23.02.2024 PASSED ON I A NO.1/2024 IN EXECUTION
CASE NO. 49/2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MANGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32267
WP No. 7737 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, the judgment debtor is at the doors of this court calling in question an order dated 23.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.1/2024 filed by the plaintiff - Decree Holder.
2. Heard Shri Rajashekar S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Nataraja Balla A., learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
The petitioner, the judgment debtor is said to have purchased the subject property. A suit is instituted by the present petitioner in O.S.No.508/2014 for injunction, restraining the respondent from peaceful possession of the petitioner. A counter claim is registered by the decree holder -
respondent in the said suit. The suit in O.S.No.508/2014 comes to be rejected, while the counter claim comes to be allowed.
The counter claim ostensibly is with regard to the counter claim schedule property. The rejection of the plaintiff's claim in O.S.No.508/2014 is challenged by the present petitioner before the First Appellate Court in RA.No.66/2019, the appeal comes -3- NC: 2025:KHC:32267 WP No. 7737 of 2024 HC-KAR to be rejected on 28.06.2021, which would be that the rejection of the relief sought by the plaintiff in the plaint comes to be affirmed, and the decree, insofar as the counter claim gets affirmed.
4. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the decree or otherwise. The decree holder files an application before the concerned court seeking police protection on the ground that the respondent - decree holder is interfering with the peaceful possession, despite the loss of the suit and the appeal. The concerned court by the impugned order, grants such police protection to the decree holder, the order reads as follows:
"4. The JDR/plaintiff was filed original suit in O.S.No.508/2014 for permanent the prohibitory injunction against DHR/defendant. The said suit was dismissed and counter claim filed by the defendant therein, was allowed by restraining the plaintiff/JDR permanently from interfering into the written statement schedule property/petition schedule property causing any kind of disobedience for peaceful possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property/petition schedule property or causing disobedience while putting up any compound wall around the written statement schedule property/petition schedule property. The plaintiff therein has preferred appeal by aggrieved the judgment and decree in O.S.No.508/2014. The said appeal also dismissed against the JDR.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:32267 WP No. 7737 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. On account of dismissal of appeal in R.A.No. 123/2021, the DHR has started construction of compound wall but 30.11.2022 the JDR has came near to the petition schedule property and threatened the DHR and his workers and restrained them. Thus, the DHR has come up with this application to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.508/2014 and sought aid of Police while construction of compound wall to his property. Therefore, it is just and necessary to allow the application. Hence I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER The application filed by the DHR U/s. 151 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed.
The jurisdictional Police Station is hereby directed to give the necessary aid to the DHR.
Issue notice to the JDR.
For await reports.
Call on: 13.03.2024."
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is before the court on the premise that he was not heard at the time when the police protection was granted. The submission is sans acceptance and co-ordinate bench of this court in WP.No.51712/2019 disposed on 07.07.2025 has laid down certain guidelines with regard to the grant of police protection, one of the guidelines so laid is an ex-parte police protection also can be granted, if the situation would so warrant.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC:32267 WP No. 7737 of 2024 HC-KAR The co-ordinate bench has held as follows:
"8. The petitioners filed OS.No.13/2017 against the respondents herein for a relief of declaration that the petitioners are lawful owners in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties and further relief of permanent injunction against the respondents from Interfering with the lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The petitioners application in IA.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') came to be allowed vide order dated 28.10.2017 by granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners by restraining the respondents, their men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. The said order is a well considered order and passed after hearing the parties to the proceedings. The said order came to be challenged by respondent No.8/defendant No.6 in MFA.No.9460/2017 and the said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.06.2019 and later it was restored. However, there is no interim order in the pending appeal.
9. The petitioners in the meanwhile filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking police protection to protect their respective possession over the suit schedule properties against the respondents on the ground that they are interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties, in violation of the temporary injunction order dated 28.10.2017. The affidavit accompanying the said application indicates that the respondents are constantly trespassing into the suit schedule properties in violation of the temporary injunction order. It also indicates that, the respondents wrongfully obstructed the vehicle of the petitioners, which was carrying the coconuts and tried to knock off the coconuts, but the petitioners managed to take away the same. It is averred that the respondents formed unlawful assembly, trespassed the properties, created obstruction and also stole coconuts stored in the petitioners' godown. The said incidents were reported to and accordingly Crime the jurisdictional police No.124/2017, Crime No.13/2019 and Crime No.85/2019 were registered against the respondents under various -6- NC: 2025:KHC:32267 WP No. 7737 of 2024 HC-KAR provision of law. The jurisdictional police are investigating the said crimes and they recovered the stolen coconuts. It is further averred that despite the registration of FIRs, the respondents continued to disturb the peaceful possession. The affidavit also indicates that there is a constant interference from the respondents with regard to the possession over the suit schedule properties in violation of the temporary injunction order. However, the trial Court has come to conclusion that the petitioners have pointed out few incidents and there is no allegation of serious threat of dispossession and rejected the application for police protection. The trial Court further recorded the finding that the petitioners have not mentioned the purpose for seeking police protection and there are 19 items of suit schedule properties and no police can be deployed to guard all the properties and proceeded to reject the application for police protection.
10. In my considered view, to consider the petitioners prayer for police protection or aid, it would be useful to consider some of the decisions on the point. This Court in the case of Smt. Karisiddamma and Others1 referred supra held that when a temporary injunction order is made absolute after hearing both the sides, there are no legal impediments in granting the police assistance for enforcing the temporary injunction order depending upon the gravity of the situation. Similarly in the case of Siddaramappa and Others2 referred supra held that when the order of temporary injunction has attained finality, both the parties to the lis are bound to obey the order passed by the trial Court and in case of any infraction to such order, the police protection can be provided. In the case of Sri.Manjunath Reddy3 referred supra it was held that even where an ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction is passed, the defendant is bound to obey the order and if the order is not obeyed, the defendant cannot have any grievance against the order of having police protection.1
ILR 2010 KAR 1197 2 WP.No.62970/2016 dated 27.02.2017 3 WP.No.37507/2012 dated 01.04.2014 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:32267 WP No. 7737 of 2024 HC-KAR
11. After examining the case law on point, I am of the view that the consideration of the application filed for police protection before the trial Court shall be based on various factors like:
a) The nature of temporary injunction order passed by the trial Court.
b) The nature of police protection sought.
c) The trial Court shall consider the effect of granting and non-granting of police protection.
d) The trial Court shall satisfy itself that prima facie case is made out for grant of police protection based on the pleading and material on record.
e) The trial Court shall record the reasons while granting the police protection against the defendants as to whether the defendants are consistently violating the temporary injunction order with impunity and there is need for police protection or aid.
f) The trial Court shall also take note of the fact that whether the temporary injunction order granted has attained finality and the application needs consideration even during the pendency of the appeal against the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court by recording the reasons for such urgency or otherwise.
g) The trial Court cannot order police protection mechanically. Each case has to be dealt based on the pleading, material on record and the nature of protection sought and nature of temporary injunction granted.
Unless the trial Court satisfies itself that there is an imminent need for police aid/police help, it cannot order for police protection on mere request.
h) The exercise of power by the trial Court to consider the application for police protection is an inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of CPC. The trial Court may pass such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
-8-NC: 2025:KHC:32267 WP No. 7737 of 2024 HC-KAR
i) There is no impediment for the trial Court to consider the application for police aid or protection merely because there is a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC.
The trial Court shall keep in mind the aforesaid factors and also consider other relevant material and factors while passing an order on the application for police protection or aid.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi and Another4 reiterating the law laid down by it in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal5 referred supra at paragraph Nos.14 to 18 has held with regard to scope of Section 151 of CPC as under:
"14. Before we deal with this question of possession as to who was in actual possession at the relevant point of time it would be appropriate to note that the order for restoration was passed by the trial court on an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A question may arise whether such an application can be entertained by the court when specific provision under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made for grant of injunction in the form of mandatory order in the exercise of power under the said order. Therefore to decide this aspect of the matter, let us consider the scope of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 151 reads as under:
"151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."
15. On a bare perusal of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said to be in dispute that 4 (2007) 12 SCC 201 5 AIR 1962 SC 527 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:32267 WP No. 7737 of 2024 HC-KAR Section 151 confers wide powers on the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
16. The power of Section 151 to pass order of injunction in the form of restoration of possession of the code is not res integra now.
17. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal [AIR 1962 SC 527: 1963 All 169] while dealing with the power of the court to pass orders for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, this Court held that the courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary order of injunction in the circumstances which are not covered under the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it was held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure.
18. At the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order."
13. It is clear from the aforesaid enunciation of the law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court has the power to enforce its order of temporary injunction by providing police aid or police protection, though to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. In the case on hand, the petitioners have placed substantial material before the trial Court and specifically pleaded that the respondents in violation of the temporary injunction order are interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties on many occasions. In support of the said plea, the petitioners have placed the material to Indicate that they have
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32267 WP No. 7737 of 2024 HC-KAR initiated criminal proceedings against the respondents and that they are under Investigation. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the order dated 28.10.2017 passed by the trial Court on an application filed by the petitioners filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 is not altered in the pending appeal in MFA.No.9460/2017. The trial Court has recorded detailed reasons while granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents with regard to the possession over the suit schedule property. In violation of the temporary injunction order, if the respondents interfere with the possession as observed by the trial Court, it is the duty of the trial Court to protect such possession by providing necessary police aid to the petitioners against the respondents, who wanted to take the law into their own hands. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed grave error in recording the finding that there are some aberrations of interference and rejected an application for police protection. The trial Court has also come to conclusion that there is a violation of the temporary injunction order by the respondents, when that being so, the trial Court ought to have directed the jurisdictional police to provide help whenever need arises.
14. This Court is conscious of the fact that there cannot be a continuous police aid or police protection to guard the properties of the petitioners. However, the same also cannot be a ground to deny the police aid whenever specific instances of interference by the respondents were brought to the notice of the police by the petitioners. Non-providing of police protection in such cases would give a ground for the respondents to defy the order of the temporary injunction granted by the Court. The Trial Court, while rejecting the application has further noted that the petitioners have filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A seeking action against the defendants for violation of injunction order, however, in my view, there is no impediment to entertain the application for police protection to seek for enforcement of the temporary injunction order just because the remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is available. It was also brought to notice of the Court that after grant of police protection by this Court in the above proceedings on 16.01.2020 there is no interference from
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:32267 WP No. 7737 of 2024 HC-KAR the respondents. That being so, I am of the considered view, that the petitioners have made out a case that there are exceptional circumstances in the case on hand and that police aid must be provided to implement the order of temporary injunction order granted by the trial Court whenever need arises. It is needless to observe that the police protection sought and granted by this Court shall remain in force till the temporary injunction order operates in favour of the petitioners. For the aforementioned reasons I proceed to pass the following:
In the case at hand, the suit is not at the nascent stage.
The suit is rejected while the counter claim is allowed. The petitioner's counter claim schedule property was disturbed by the plaintiff. The concerned court has appropriately granted police protection, in terms of the law laid down by the co-
ordinate bench as quoted supra.
6. In the light of the order warranting no interference, as I do not find any perversity in the said order, the petition deserves to be rejected, it is accordingly rejected and the interim order of any kind subsisting stands dissolved.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY