Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In these circumstances, the matter is referred to us and the short but important question we have to examine here is this.

Whether the civil courts can issue directions to the Police Officials in order to execute the order of the civil courts or to implement the order of injunction passed by the civil courts.

4. Mr. G. Subramaniyam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there being no provision in the Code in this behalf, the civil court has inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code to issue directions to the police officials in order to execute the orders of the civil courts or to implement the order of injunction passed by the civil court. On the other hand, Mr. Ilango, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant police aid particularly, with regard to the implementation of the orders of injunction granted by the civil courts. The learned Counsel for the respondents further contended that Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code provides for the disobedience or breach of injunction and Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code provides for execution of the decree for injunction; therefore, by invoking the inherent powers under Section 151, the court cannot issue directions to the police officials in order to execute the decree of injunction or to implement the order of temporary injunction granted by them.

The second stage is the implementation of the order of temporary injunction or decree granting perpetual injunction. There is no specific provision under the Code dealing with the implementation of the order of temporary injunction or a decree for perpetual injunction.
The third stage is the punishment for disobedience of the order of injunction. Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code deals with the consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction or other orders made under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code. Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code says that where a party against whom a decree for injunction has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree but has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree for injunction may be enforced by his detention in civil prison or by the attachment of his property or by both. Thus, the Code contains specific provision with regard to the grant of an order of temporary injunction and for punishing the party who disobeys the order of temporary injunction and the decree for perpetual injunction. However, there is no provision in the Code providing for the implementation of the order of temporary injunction or decree for perpetual injunction granted by the courts. When there is no specific provision of law which is sufficient to implement the order of temporary injunction or the decree for perpetual injunction granted by the court, we do not see why the provisions of Section 151 of the Code cannot be invoked for the said purpose to render justice or to redress the wrong, because, the courts should not only have the power to pass an order, but also should have the power to implement the said order. Therefore, when a party has obtained an order of temporary injunction from a court under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code and the other party against whom the order of injunction is passed disobeys the same, the aggrieved party can certainly approach the court invoking the power of the court under Section 151 and pray for police aid for the enforcement of the order of temporary injunction. When it is brought to the notice of the court that the enforcement of the order of temporary injunction is sought to be prevented or obstructed, the court in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 151, can direct the police authorities to render all aid to the aggrieved party in the enforcement of the order of the injunction granted by the court in order to render complete justice. It must be remembered, by ordering police help to the party who has obtained an order of temporary injunction, the court merely takes the follow-up steps to implement its earlier order of injunction. In appropriate cases, where the court finds that a party who had secured an order of injunction from the court is not in a position to have its full benefit owing either to obstruction or non-co-operation of the other side, it is always open to the court to direct the police authorities to see that its order is obeyed. As observed by the Full Bench of this Court in Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. Suppiah (1975)2 M.L.J. 54, when there is a violation of an order of injunction granted by the civil court, or when something has been, done in disobedience of such an order of injunction, it is the duty of the court as a matter of judicial Policy to undo the wrong done in disobedience of the court's order and the power to enforce the order of injunction by ordering police aid is available under Section 151 of the Code.
23. In view of the above position of law, it has to be held that in appropriate cases, directions under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code can be issued by the civil courts to the police authorities to extend their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders or to render aid to aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the order of temporary injunction or a decree for permanent injunction granted by civil courts.
24. Then we have to examine the contrary view taken by Srinivasan, J., in G. Krishnan v. Smt. Thulasi Animal (1991)1 L.W. 513. In the above case, the petitioner filed an injunction petition before the lower court for reatraining the respondent from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, and it was ordered after contest. The petitioner filed another petition with a prayer that the District Munsif should order police protection to him with appropriate direction to see that the order of injunction passed was not violated. The lower court dismissed the application taking the view that the order of injunction ceased to have effect on the filing of the appeal by the respondent in the District Court. C.R.P. No. 2853 of 1990 was preferred against that order. The learned Judge took the view that the civil court cannot issue directions to the police officials in order to execute the orders of the civil courts or to implement the orders of injunction passed by the civil courts and consequently held that the petitioner's application filed before the trial court with a prayer that the trial court should order police protection is not maintainable and on that ground, dismissed the C.R.P, The learned Judge gives the following three reasons for holding that civil courts cannot issue directions to the police officials in order to execute the orders of the civil court or to implement the orders of injunction passed by the civil court: