Availability of Order XXXIX Rule 2A does not bar police aid to enforce an injunction.

The petitioner-plaintiff obtained a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

Alleging that the respondents continued to interfere despite the injunction, she complained to the police, who declined to act on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature.

She then sought police protection under Section 151 CPC.

The Trial Court dismissed the application, reasoning that she had an efficacious remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

She challenged that dismissal in this writ petition.

1. Whether the availability of a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, by itself, justifies rejecting an application for police protection to enforce a temporary injunction

2. Whether the Trial Court’s dismissal of the application on that ground warranted interference in writ jurisdiction

Section 151 CPC preserves the civil court’s inherent powers, which may be invoked to seek police aid for implementing the court’s orders.

Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC provides a remedy for disobedience of an injunction, but its availability is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to reject an application for police protection.

The court must ensure that its orders are obeyed and implemented in their true letter and spirit.

No precedent was cited.

The petitioner had an operative injunction protecting her possession and alleged that the respondents were disobeying it; the police had declined assistance because they viewed the matter as civil.

The Trial Court dismissed the application solely because Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC was available. The High Court held that this alternative remedy did not relieve the court of its duty to ensure compliance with its orders, and that the Trial Court had therefore erred in rejecting the application on that basis.