Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sidhachal Stulabhadra vs Sri. C. Muniraj on 10 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25219
W.P. No.31589/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.31589/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SIDHACHAL STULABHADRA
DHAM SHASAN PRAVHAVAK TRUST
PARIVALA GUDDA
BENGALURU-BELLARY ROAD
NH-7, DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110
Digitally signed REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
by RUPA V SRI. PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI.
Location: High 2. SRI. PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI
Court of S/O SRI. HASTIMAL KOTHARI
karnataka AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.1224, NEAR BTS TERMINUS
YELAHANKA OLD TOWN
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.
3. SRI. NEMICHAND JI LUNKAD
S/O SRI. ANRAJ JI LUKAND
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD
NEAR BTS TERMINUS
YELAHANKA OLD TOWN
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.
4. SRI. PRAVEENCHANDRA R. SHAH
[DELETED]
5. SRI. INDERCHAND BOHRA
S/O SRI. B.G. BHAVARLAL BOHRA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO. 9/3, OSBORNE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 053.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25219
W.P. No.31589/2019
HC-KAR
6. SRI. M. JAYCHAND CHUTTAR
S/O SRI. MANGALCHAND JI CHITTAR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, JAIN TEMPLE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 053.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. C. MUNIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
LIC AGENT
R/AT MARALU BAGILU
WARD NO.12, DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL-562 110.
2. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY @ APPAYYANNA
[DELETED]
3. SRI. BHAVEESH PAREKH
[DELETED.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
V/O/DTD:19.06.2025 PERMITTED TO DELETE NAME OF P4
V/O/DTD: 19.06.2025 PERMITTED TO DELETE NAMES OF R2 & R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD28.6.2019 MADE IN O.S.NO.416/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AT
DEVANAHALLI AVAILABLE IN ANXURE-F & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25219
W.P. No.31589/2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash the order dated 28-06-2019 made in O.S.No.416/2013 on the file of the Court of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli at Devanahalli available in Annexure-F, and issue further appropriate direction, in the interest of justice."
2. Sri.P.D.Surana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed suit against the respondents for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') which came to be allowed by the trial Court on 10.03.2014 by recording clear finding on the title and possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the said order of the trial Court has attained finality and in violation of the temporary injunction order, the respondents are consistently interfering with the possession of the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:25219 W.P. No.31589/2019 HC-KAR petitioners over the suit schedule property, which compelled the petitioners to file an application seeking police protection to implement the temporary injunction. It is submitted that the petitioners have made out a specific assertion in paragraph No.7 of the affidavit accompanying the application with regard to the nature of interference caused by the respondents in violation of the temporary injunction order. However, the trial Court without considering any of the aspects has considered the objections of the defendants and rejected the same. It is submitted that the temporary injunction order granted by the trial Court, unless it is implemented with the police help, it would be difficult for the petitioners to carry out day to day activities of the trust, including performing pooja etc., Hence, he seeks to allow the application for police aid or police protection to implement the temporary injunction.
3. Though notice of this proceedings is served on the respondents, they remained absent. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:25219 W.P. No.31589/2019 HC-KAR
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. The pleading and material on record indicate that the petitioners filed suit in O.S.No.416/2013 and the same is pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. The petitioners' application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was allowed by the trial Court on 10.03.2014. The trial Court, while allowing the said application, has satisfied itself with regard to a prima facie case made out by the petitioners over the possession and the title to consider the said application and allowed the same by restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the suit schedule property. It is not in dispute that the temporary injunction order granted by the trial Court has attained finality and there is no challenge to -6- NC: 2025:KHC:25219 W.P. No.31589/2019 HC-KAR the same. When things stood thus, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking prayer to direct the jurisdictional police i.e. Devanahalli police to implement the order of temporary injunction dated 10.03.2014 on the ground that the respondents are consistently interfering with the activities of the petitioners in violation of the temporary injunction order. In support of their plea, the petitioners in paragraph No.7 of the affidavit has specifically asserted that a group of persons have sent to the suit schedule property by the respondents, they continuously caused disturbance and tried to dispossess the petitioners. However, the said incident was brought to the notice of the jurisdictional police on 01.06.2019 but they failed to take note of the same.
6. In my considered view, the petitioners have made out a case by pointing out that the respondents are consistently interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule property by creating -7- NC: 2025:KHC:25219 W.P. No.31589/2019 HC-KAR nuisance or trying to dispossess the petitioners in violation of the temporary injunction order. It is not the case of the defendants that the temporary injunction order dated 10.03.2014 rendered by the trial Court is modified. In the absence of any such stand of the respondents, it is my considered view that the trial Court has committed grave error in rejecting the application for police protection.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi and Another1 reiterating the law laid down by it in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal2 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 1 (2007) 12 SCC 201 2 AIR 1962 SC 527 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:25219 W.P. No.31589/2019 HC-KAR 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 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 LJ 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 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:25219 W.P. No.31589/2019 HC-KAR 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."
8. This Court in the case of Sri Balakrishna K.P & Others v. K.P.Putturaju & Others3 has laid down the guidelines to be considered by the Trial Court, while dealing with an application under the Section 151 of CPC seeking police protection. The relevant paragraph is extracted for reference:
"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 3 W.P.No.51712/2019 dated 07.07.2025
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25219 W.P. No.31589/2019 HC-KAR 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.
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."
9. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, make it clear
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25219 W.P. No.31589/2019 HC-KAR that the trial Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC can grant police aid/protection, if there is a violation of the order of temporary injunction. Keeping in mind the aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that it is the duty of the trial Court to consider the application seeking police protection when there is a specific assertion made with regard to wilful disobedience of the order of temporary injunction. The respondents in defiance of the order of temporary injunction are constantly interfering with the possession by taking law into their own hands, due to which the order of temporary injunction is violated in impunity. I am also of the considered view that prima facie case has been made out, as there is constant interference with the possession of the suit schedule property by the respondents. Hence, under such circumstances, my considered view is that the application seeking for police aid is required to be granted. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25219
W.P. No.31589/2019
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 28.06.2019
passed on IA filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of the CPC seeking police protection is hereby set aside.
iii) Consequently, IA filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of the CPC seeking police protection is allowed.
iv) The jurisdictional police i.e. Devanahalli police is directed to implement the temporary injunction order dated 10.03.2014 by providing necessary police aid whenever the petitioners point out the specific instances of violation of the temporary injunction order.
v) No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27