Facts
Respondent No. 1 sued for mandatory injunction, possession and perpetual injunction concerning one gunta of land in Sy. No. 109/3 at Mahalbagayat, Vijayapura.
Source reference: p. 3The trial court partly allowed his application for temporary injunction, restraining the petitioners and other respondents from constructing or making structural changes on the suit property. That order was not challenged and attained finality.
Source reference: p. 3–6Respondent No. 1 then sought police protection under Section 151 CPC to implement the injunction, alleging attempts to violate it; he also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.
Source reference: p. 3–6The trial court allowed the police-protection application. The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution
Source reference: p. 3–6Issues
1. Whether the trial court could direct police protection to implement an interim injunction, notwithstanding the availability of a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.
Source reference: p. 4–72. Whether the trial court’s order granting police protection disclosed an error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p. 4, 7Law Applied
The court considered Section 151 CPC, which preserves the court’s inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice, and Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, which provides a remedy for disobedience of an injunction.
Source reference: p. 7It applied the principle that a court has a duty to ensure its orders are implemented and that the availability of a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A does not, by itself, preclude police protection to secure effective implementation of a temporary injunction.
Source reference: p. 7The petition was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution, but the court identified no error in the impugned order warranting intervention.
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
The injunction restraining construction on the suit property had attained finality, and the trial court had before it an allegation that the order was being violated.
Source reference: p. 5–7In those circumstances, the court held that directing police aid was a permissible means of ensuring effective implementation of its order.
Source reference: p. 5–7The separate remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A did not require the trial court to refuse police protection.
Source reference: p. 5–7The High Court therefore found no error in the trial court’s decision.
Source reference: p. 5–7Holding
The High Court held that the trial court rightly granted police protection to implement the temporary injunction
dismissed the writ petition.
Source reference: p. 7Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of
Source reference: p. 7Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Civil Procedure, 19081
Original Court PDF
RAMESHvsSANTOSH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
