Police protection may be granted to enforce interim injunctions notwithstanding an Order XXXIX Rule 2A remedy.

The petitioner challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Trial Court’s order dated 20 August 2026 allowing the respondents’ application for police protection in O.S. No. 360/2025.

The underlying interim order restrained the petitioner from interfering with the Trust’s peaceful possession of the suit property and permitted temple construction, subject to the outcome of the suit; a miscellaneous appeal against that order was pending.

The Trial Court granted police protection after the respondents alleged obstruction and produced a police endorsement, photographs and a CD.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had not disputed or denied causing obstruction to the construction.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order granting police protection to safeguard the interim order was legally sustainable

2. Whether the availability of a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC precluded the Trial Court from granting police protection

Under Section 151 of the CPC, a civil court has inherent power to grant police aid or protection where necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of its process.

In Balakrishna K.P. v. K.P. Puttaraju, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 12654, the Court identified relevant considerations for police protection, including the nature of the injunction and protection sought, the effect of granting or refusing protection, the prima facie case, evidence of persistent violation, whether the injunction is under appeal, and the urgency for police aid; protection must not be ordered mechanically and the court must give reasons.

The availability of a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A does not bar a court from considering police protection.

The High Court found that the Trial Court considered the alleged violation, the police endorsement, the photographs and CD, and the progress of construction to wall level; it also noted that the petitioner had not denied obstructing the construction.

In light of those circumstances and the Trial Court’s consideration of the applicable principles, the High Court held that police protection was justified to preserve the efficacy of the operative interim order.

The pending appeal and the alternative remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A did not, by themselves, prevent such protection.

Finding no error or infirmity in the Trial Court’s order granting police protection, it dismissed the writ petition.