Police Cannot Refuse Court-Ordered Protection on the Ground That a Dispute Is Civil.

The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S. No. 249/2023, obtained a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit property.

The injunction was affirmed on appeal and in a writ petition.

The trial court later granted police aid under Section 151 CPC to enforce the injunction, directing the Hulsoor Police Sub-Inspector to assist the petitioner; a challenge to that order was dismissed by the High Court.

When the petitioner sought assistance, respondent No. 5 issued an endorsement stating that the dispute was civil in nature and directing him to await the suit’s outcome.

The petitioner challenged the endorsement and sought implementation of the trial court’s orders.

1. Whether the police could decline to provide assistance to enforce the trial court’s subsisting police-aid order by treating the dispute as civil in nature.

2. Whether the endorsement dated 20 July 2026 should be set aside and the police directed to implement the trial court’s orders.

The Court considered Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, under which the trial court had granted temporary injunctive relief, and Section 151 CPC, under which it had ordered police assistance to enforce that relief.

The Court applied the principle that police authorities must give effect to a subsisting court order for police protection and cannot decline to do so merely because the underlying dispute is civil.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution; no precedent was cited.

The temporary injunction and the subsequent police-aid order remained operative, and challenges to both had been dismissed.

The petitioner’s request for police assistance was therefore governed by the trial court’s order, not by the police’s view that the dispute was civil or by the pendency of the suit.

The Court held that the endorsement was inconsistent with the police’s obligation to implement the order and warned the relevant officers to act when notified of interference with the petitioner’s possession.

It directed respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to implement the trial court’s orders dated 28 April 2025 and 12 February 2026 in letter and spirit, as sought in the petitioner’s representations.

The proposed respondent’s impleadment application was rejected.

Although the petition also sought directions concerning investigation of specified crimes, the Court’s final order did not expressly grant or determine that relief.