Babu vs Solly
2021 Latest Caselaw 5243 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

     FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942

                          OP(C).No.1773 OF 2020

   I.A.NO.7/2020 IN O.S.NO.571/2019 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,
                           IRINJALAKUDA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

             BABU
             AGED 58 YEARS
             S/O.MANJALI DEVASSY,
             THORAVU VILLAGE, CHUNGAM,
             MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 301.

             BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

      1      SOLLY
             AGED 38 YEARS
             W/O.AKKARA JACKSON,
             OLLUR VILLAGE DESOM,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 306.

      2      JACKSON,
             AGED 44 YEARS
             H/O.SOLLY, AKKARA HOUSE,
             OLLUR VILLAGE DESOM,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 306.

             R1-2   BY   ADV.   SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN
             R1-2   BY   ADV.   SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY
             R1-2   BY   ADV.   SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI
             R1-2   BY   ADV.   SRI.VISAKH ANTONY
             R1-2   BY   ADV.   SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW
             R1-2   BY   ADV.   SRI.ABEL ANTONY

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.02.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(C) No.1773/2020                  2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of February 2021

Exhibit P3 order dismissing I.A.No.7 of 2020 filed by the

plaintiff in O.S.No.571 of 2019 is challenged in this Original

Petition. The plaintiff obtained an order of temporary injunction,

which was later confirmed in C.M.A.No.46 of 2019 by the Sub

Court, Irinjalakuda. The plaintiff then filed I.A.No.7 of 2020

seeking enforcement of the order through police help. It was

objected to by the defendants in the suit contending that a

situation warranting police interference did not emerge in the

case between the parties. It was also contended that the

complaint of alleged violation of order of injunction was made

without any basis.

2. The court below, after considering all the contentions,

held that the petitioner failed to show that order of violation of

injunction was violated and therefore refused to order police aid.

The impugned order passed on I.A.No.7 of 2020 is challenged

as illegal.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well

as the respondent.

4. I do not propose to examine the factual contentions

raised by the parties and pass an order on merits. It suffices to

say that a civil court has necessary power to direct

implementation of its order through police by invoking its

inherent power under Section 151 of C.P.C. This is done to do

justice and prevent the abuse of process of court. This does not

mean that the court is allowing the police to interfere with the

civil rights of the parties. Laying down the clear position of law

in this respect, a learned Singe Judge of this Court in

Mohammad v. Mohammed Haji (1986 KLT 134) held as

follows :

"4. The important point to be considered is as to whether the court is entitled to enforce the order in I.A.No.1275/81 by affording police protection. Though action can be taken by the court for violation of injunction under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. That does not end there as it is open to the court to implement its order by exercising its inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. In this context it is useful to refer to the decision in Hari Nandan v. S.N.Panditta (AIR 1975 All. 48) wherein it has been held as follows :

"Where the plaintiff has been dispossessed by the defendants by willfully disobeying the interim injunction order restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff the Court which issued the order can in exercise of its inherent power after considering the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties pass such order in the ends of justice as would undo the wrong done to the plaintiff in whose favour the injunction order had been issued."

As injunction order granted by the trial court is in force, it cannot be allowed to be meddled with and to prevent any flagrant acts of violation of the order the court can issue suitable orders by exercising its inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. In the decision in R.Audemma v. P.Narasimham (AIR 1971 A.P. 53) it is held that in order to do justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court, the civil courts have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties with regard to the implementation of the orders of the court or the exercise of the rights created under orders of court."

Having gone through the impugned order, I am not sure

that the court below has rightly understood the legal position

before passing the impugned order. It suffices to say that the

matter has to be remitted back to the court below for a fresh

decision in the light of the legal position extracted above: It will

be open to the court below to hear the parties and decide

I.A.No.7 of 2020 seeking issue of direction for implementing the

order passed in C.M.A.No.46 of 2019. In the event of the court

allowing I.A.No.7 of 2020, it must be clarified that the police has

only to implement the order as it stands and duty of the police is

only to ensure that the order passed by the court is not violated.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE csl

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.571 OF 2019 DATED 22.04.2019 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA NO.46 OF 2019 DATED 28.01.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA NO.7 OF 2020 IN EXT.P1 SUIT DATED 23.10.2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.