Court can grant police aid even though plaintiff can sue defendent for breach of injunction order

It has to be noticed that O. 39 ., R. 2 (3) Civil P. C. provides only for punishment by attachment of the property or by detention in civil prison of the person who committed breach. But it does not further provide for implementation of the order of injunction itself. Order 39, Rule 2 (3) cannot be said to be an express provision with respect to implementation of the order of injunction, but is only a provision which provides penalty for disobedience of the order. In such a case there being no other express provision in the Code for enforcement of the order, it is not only proper but also necessary that the Courts should render all aid to the aggrieved party to derive full benefits of the order. Though the order of injunction under Order 39, Civil P. c. is only interim in nature, still it clothes the person who obtained the order with certain rights and he is entitled to enforce the aforesaid right against the party who is bound by the order. No doubt in such a case, the aggrieved party himself could approach the police authorities to prevent obstruction to the enforcement of the order or to the exercise of the right which he derives under the order of Court.But we do not see why when the same person brings to the notice of the court that enforcement of the order is sought to be prevented or obstructed, the court should not exercise its inherent power under Section 151, Civil P. C. and direct the police authorities to render all aid to the aggrieved party in the implementation of the Court's order,. In our opinion the exercise of such power is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process and the civil court has ample jurisdiction to pass such order under Sec. 151, Civil P. C. The learned Judges, observation "that the police are not bound to obey any directions of the court in the absence of any statutory obligation to do so and a civil court would be stultifying itself by giving directions which may not be complied with", with great respect, cannot be said to be correct. Inasmuch as we are of the opinion that such a direction to the police authorities could be given under the inherent powers of the court under Section 151, Civil P. C. Police are bound to obey such directions.

6. In the Allahabad case also, the learned Judges merely observed that the civil court had no jurisdiction to order the police to interfere in the matter of execution of a decree. The inherent powers execrable by the civil court under Section 151, Civil P. C. were not referred to. Their Lordships also proceeded on the footing that because the disobedience of the order of the court was punishable with penalties mentioned in Order XXI, Rule 32, Civil P. C. the Court could not give any direction to the police with respect to the execution of the decree. The provision for penalty is entirely different from the enforcement of the order itself as we have mentioned earlier. Such a provision would not and cannot preclude the court from exercising its inherent power under Section 151, Civil P. C. in order to do justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court. But the actual decision given therein with respect to the direction given to the Superintendent of Police may be correct inasmuch as the form in which the direction was given to the police authorities, does not appear to be proper or correct.

 

Andhra High Court

 

Rayapati Audemma vs Pothineni Narasimham on 11 July, 1969

 

Equivalent citations: AIR 1971 AP 53

Bench: G Ekbote, R Rao