Civil Courts Can Order Police Aid Under Section 151 CPC To Enforce Injunctions : Orissa High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra set aside a trial court’s refusal to facilitate enforcement of an interim injunction and directed that police assistance be provided for its implementation. The dispute arose from a civil suit for partition and permanent injunction, where the petitioner, as the plaintiff, claimed possession of a portion of the undivided property and alleged that the defendants obstructed construction of a house despite an order restraining interference and permitting the work. The Court held that although the Code of Civil Procedure contains no specific provision for police aid to enforce an injunction, a civil court may, when other express remedies are inadequate to make the injunction effective, invoke its inherent power under Section 151 to order police assistance.
The petitioner was the plaintiff in a civil suit for partition and permanent injunction concerning an undivided property, claiming a one-third share and asserting possession over a specific portion by mutual arrangement. While the property had not been partitioned by metes and bounds, the petitioner commenced construction of a residential house on the portion claimed to be in his possession.
During the construction, objections were raised by the opposite parties, who allegedly obstructed the work and threatened demolition of the partially constructed structure. In view of these disturbances, the petitioner filed an application seeking temporary injunction. The trial court allowed the application, restraining the defendants from interfering with the construction and permitting the petitioner to proceed, subject to certain undertakings.
Despite the subsisting injunction, further obstruction was alleged. The petitioner approached the local police authorities for assistance, which was declined in the absence of a court direction. Consequently, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the trial court seeking police assistance for implementation of the injunction. The said application was rejected, leading the petitioner to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
The Court first examined the nature and effect of the injunction order and recorded that “the trial Court was subjectively satisfied that an order restraining the defendants from creating disturbance in the construction work was necessary to be passed and along with it a positive order permitting the plaintiff to construct the house was also passed.”
Addressing the pendency of an appeal against the injunction, the Court observed that “mere filing of an appeal cannot and does not operate as a stay of the order appealed against.” It further noted that “unless of course an order of stay operation of the same has been passed,” the injunction continues to remain operative. In the present case, “nothing has been placed before this Court to suggest that operation of the order of injunction has been suspended.”
On the reliance placed by the trial court on Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC, the High Court recorded that “the question of detention, preservation and inspection etc., of the suit property is not in the least involved,” and held that reference to the provision was “fallacious.”
Considering the alternative remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC, the Court acknowledged that disturbance would amount to violation of injunction but noted that “the power under Section 151 of CPC is wide enough to be exercised for protection of the rights of the parties if the available provisions are found to be inadequate.” Relying on precedent, it reiterated that “the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed.”
The Court ultimately observed that “as long as the plaintiff is unable to construct his house, the order of the trial Court would be rendered ineffectual,” and that “it is the duty of the Court to ensure that the fruits of the order passed by it are actually reaped by the party for whom it is intended.”
The High Court recorded that “the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law” and accordingly “the impugned order is set aside. The CMP is allowed. The trial Court is directed to direct the concerned police authority to render all assistance to the plaintiff in construction of his house as per order dated 11.05.2022 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2022.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. P.K. Khuntia, Advocate
Case Title: Sayed Ekram Saha v. Haroon Khan & Others
Case Number: C.M.P. No.140 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sashikanta Mishra
