Trial Courts Have Inherent Power Under Section 151 CPC to Grant Police Assistance for Implementing Injunction Orders: Orissa High Court

​The Bench of Justice Sashikant Mishra held, “Undoubtedly, creation of disturbance by the defendants in the construction work would amount to violation of the order of injunction but then, the question that needs to be answered is whether the provision would be sufficient as a remedy. True, the CPC does not specifically provide for police assistance for implementation of the order of the Court but the power under Section 151 of CPC is wide enough to be exercised for protection of the rights of the parties if the available provisions are found to be inadequate… Thus, the settled position of law is that directing police assistance would undoubtedly be an extreme step but then if the situation so warrants, the Court can exercise such power.”

Advocate PK Sathapathy appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas Advocate PK Khunthia appeared for the Respondents

Factual Background

The Petitioner/Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction, claiming a 1/3rd share of property held under mutual possession, seeking an interim injunction to prevent the defendant from obstructing the construction of his PMAY-sanctioned house. The Trial Court had allowed the application and granted a temporary injunction, permitting construction, but the Opposite Parties/Defendant continued to create disturbances and blocked the roof casting. When local police refused to intervene without a court mandate, the Petitioner/Plaintiff filed a Section 151 CPC application for police assistance, which was subsequently rejected. The Petitioner/Plaintiff now challenges this rejection.

Contention of the parties

It was argued by the Petitioner/Plaintiff that the Court below rejected the petition on untenable grounds without appreciating the fact that the same runs contrary to the spirit of the order of injunction already passed by it. It was submitted that the provision Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC is not a sufficient remedy, as even if an order is passed in favour of the plaintiff under the said provision, it would be of no help to him, as the order of injunction would remain unimplemented.

Per contra, it was argued by the Defendants that if the plaintiff is aggrieved by the alleged violation of the order of injunction, he can file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A. The CPC nowhere provides for the rendering of police help for the implementation of the order of the Court. It is an extreme step which is not to be exercised by the Court routinely.

Observations of the Court

The Court said, “Thus, mere filing of an appeal cannot and does not operate as a stay of the order appealed against. So, merely because the order of injunction has been challenged before the higher forum does not, ipso-facto, mean that the order appealed against no longer exists, unless of course an order of stay operation of the same has been passed. In the instant case, the impugned order does not mention if any order of stay was passed by the appellate Court, nor has anything been placed before this Court to suggest that operation of the order of injunction has been suspended. This Court therefore, holds that pendency of the appeal in the facts and circumstances, shall have no bearing on the application seeking police assistance.”

The Court placed its reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Meera Chauhan V. Harsh Bishnoi & Another 2007, which held that the when parties violate order of injunction 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.

“As long as the plaintiff is unable to construct his house, the order of the trial Court would be rendered ineffectual. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that the fruits of the order passed by it is are actually reaped by the party for whom it is intended. Otherwise, the order would be rendered a dead letter. This would militate against the fundamental canons of justice, as, despite a favourable order, the party concerned would be deprived from its benefits. The trial Court appears to have proceeded on a misconceived notion and in the process, has reduced itself to a mute spectator, while its order remains unimplemented.”, the Court observed.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The Court also directed the Trial Court to direct the concerned police authority to render all assistance to the plaintiff in the construction of his house.

Cause Title: Sayed Ekram Saha v. Haroon Khan & Ors. [CMP No. 140 of 2023]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate PK Sathapathy

Opposite Parties: Advocate PK Khunthia

Click here to read/download the Judgment