Karnataka High Court
Sri Balakrishna K P vs Sri K P Puttaraju on 7 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.51712/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BALAKRISHNA K.P.
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
2. SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR
S/O SRI. K.P. BALAKRISHNA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
by RUPA V
BOTH ARE R/AT K. KAMANAGATTA
Location: High
HIRISAVE HOBLI
Court of CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-571112.
karnataka
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H.N. SHASHIDHARA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. H.S. SUHAS, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. K.P. PUTTARAJU
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
SRI. K.P. MANJEGOWDA
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
2. SMT. SUJATHA
W/O K.P. MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
3. KUM. PRAKRUTHI
D/O K.P. MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
4. KUM. PRANITHA
D/O K.P. MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
5. SRI. K.P. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
6. SRI. K.P. KUMARASWAMY
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
7. SRI. RAMAPRASAD
S/O PUTTARAJU
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 ARE
R/AT K. KAMANAGATTA, HIRISAVE HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-571112.
8. SMT. KEMPAMMA
W/O RAJANNA @ HUCHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT SIDDAPURA PALYA
HONNENAHALLI POST
BELUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.
9. SMT. K.P. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O B. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 60 YERS
R/AT D. TUMKUR, HIRISAVE HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-571112.
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR'S.
9(a) B. NAGARAJU
S/O BHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
9(b) SMT. N. SHYLAJA
D/O B. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
9(c) SRI. SADANANDA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
S/O B. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
9(d) SRI. INDUSHEKHAR
S/O B. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 9(a) TO 9(d)
ARE R/AT. K. KAMANAGATTA
D. TUMKURU POST, DIDAGA-573141
HIRISAVE HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-571112.
10. SMT. K.P. NALINAKSHI @ NANJAMMA
W/O SIDDEGOWDA
(RETIRED CEMENT COMPANY EMPLOYEE)
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT KUVEMPU NAGAR, BEHIND RTO OFFICE
TUMKUR CITY AND DISTRICT-571832.
11. SRI. K.P. BALARAMEGOWDA
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEAS
R/AT DIDGA, HIRISAVE HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-571112.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA R. NAIK, ADV., FOR R1 TO R7, R10 & R11
SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV., FOR R8, R9 (a to d)
VK FILED FOR R9(b) TO R9(d))
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF IA NO.13
DATED 11.11.2019 IN O.S.NO.13/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA
VIDE ANNX-A TO THE W.P. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION ALLOWING I.A.NO.13, IN O.S.NO.13/2017 ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION AND JMFC,
CHANNARAYAPATNA AND GRANT THE RELIEF & ETC.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
25.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed challenging order dated
11.11.2019 passed on IA.No.13 in O.S.13/2017 by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna.
2. Sri.H.N.Shashidhara, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners filed
suit against the respondents for declaration and
permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners'
application for temporary injunction was considered and
granted by detailed order on 28.10.2017. The said order
was challenged in MFA.No.9460/2017. However, the said
appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and later
restored and there is no stay of the order dated
28.10.2017.
3. It is submitted that despite the restraining
order against the respondents, they have attempted to
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
dispossess and caused continuous disturbance to the
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the
petitioners. It is further submitted that petitioners gave
police complaints with regard to some incidents and FIRs
came to be registered against the respondents. Despite
the same, the respondents have continued to disturb the
lawful possession of the petitioners in violation of the
interim order granted by the trial Court, which compelled
the petitioners to file an application seeking police
protection to protect their possession. However, the trial
Court without considering the same has passed an order
on 11.11.2019 and rejected the application solely on the
ground that the incidents narrated by the petitioners are
mere aberrations of interference.
4. It is submitted that the petitioners lodged the
police complaints against the respondents for constant
disturbance to their possession and number of incidents
were pointed out in the application. However, none of such
things were considered by the trial Court, which has
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
resulted in rejection of the application. In support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions:
a) Smt.Karisiddamma and Others v. Smt.Sanna
Kenchamma1
b) Siddaramappa and Others v. Talavar Rangappa
and Others2
c) Sri.Manjunath Reddy v. Smt.V.Nagarathna and
Others3
It is contended that this Court has granted interim
police protection in the present proceedings and
thereafter, the respondents have not disturbed their
possession over the suit schedule properties. Hence, he
seeks to allow the writ petition by providing police
protection to protect their possession over the suit
schedule properties.
5. Per contra, Sri.Ramachandra R. Naik, learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and 10 & 11
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:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
and Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.8 and 9(a) to 9(d) supports the impugned
order of the trial Court. It is submitted that the petitioners
have misrepresented before the Court in the writ petition
stating that MFA.No.9460/2017 is dismissed and obtained
the interim relief in the present petition. However, the said
appeal is still pending. It is submitted that immediately
after the passing of the interim order by this Court, the
respondents filed an application for vacating the same
which is pending and the petitioners took many
adjournments for one or the other pretext.
6. It is further submitted that respondent No.8 has
filed OS.No.59/2017 seeking relief of partition and
separate possession in respect of the same properties
which is pending and the petitioners have filed written
statement in the said suit and without disclosing all the
facts petitioners have obtained the interim order at the
hands of this Court. It is also submitted that the interim
order of the trial Court dated 28.10.2017 has not attained
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
finality and till the temporary injunction attains finality
there cannot be any police protection. It is submitted that
there cannot be an interim order against the co-owner of
the property and very grant of order of temporary
injunction is required to be interfered. In support of his
contentions he placed reliance on the decision of this Court
in the case of Eswaraiah v. B.S.Siddalingappa and
Others4. He seeks to dismiss the writ petition.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned
senior counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for
the respondents and perused the material available on
record. I have given my anxious considerations to the
submissions advanced on both sides.
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
4
ILR 1999 KAR 3037
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
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
the jurisdictional police and accordingly Crime
No.124/2017, Crime No.13/2019 and Crime No.85/2019
were registered against the respondents under various
provision of law. The jurisdictional police are investigating
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
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
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
Court in the case of Smt.Karisiddamma and Others
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 Others 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 Reddy 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.
11. After examining the case law on point, I am of
the view that the consideration of the application filed for
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
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
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
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.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
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 Another5
reiterating the law laid down by it in the case of Manohar
Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal6
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
5
(2007) 12 SCC 201
6
AIR 1962 SC 527
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
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 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
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
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
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
placed the material to indicate that they have 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
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
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
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360
W.P. No.51712/2019
HC-KAR
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 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:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:24360 W.P. No.51712/2019 HC-KAR
ii) Impugned order dated 11.11.2019 passed on IA.No.13 in O.S.No.13/2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Channarayapatna is hereby set aside.
iii) Consequently, IA.No.13 is allowed.
iv) The jurisdictional police i.e. Hirisave police is directed to provide police aid whenever the petitioners seek by pointing out that the respondents are trying to dispossess or acting in violation of the temporary injunction order dated 28.10.2017.
v) No order to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2