Madras HC Orders Police To Restore Plaintiffs’ Possession After Alleged Forcible Dispossession Despite Injunction

The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction and obtained an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; the injunction was affirmed in appeal

They subsequently alleged that the defendants harvested their paddy crop in breach of the injunction and later forcibly dispossessed them on 16 January 2019.

The plaintiffs sought police aid to enforce the injunction, but the Trial Court dismissed their application

The plaintiffs challenged that dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC provide for interim injunctions, and Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC was invoked in the related application concerning alleged disobedience of the injunction

The Court applied the principle that a subsisting court order must be obeyed and enforced; where an interim injunction had been confirmed on appeal and the plaintiffs alleged forcible dispossession, police aid could be ordered to give effect to the injunction and prevent the order from remaining merely on paper

The interim injunction contained a finding that the plaintiffs were in possession, and it had been confirmed by the Sub Court and subsequently upheld in revision; the Court therefore treated the injunction as having reached finality and rejected the defendants’ attempt to re-agitate possession

In light of the plaintiffs’ specific allegation that they had been forcibly dispossessed, the Court held that police assistance was warranted to enforce the injunction and restore possession. It found that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate these circumstances

It directed the jurisdictional police to assist in enforcing the interim injunction and restoring the plaintiffs’ possession, and directed the Trial Court to take necessary steps to enforce the order. No costs were awarded