The question before me, therefore, is whether the Court below was justified in ordering police protection. No doubt it is true that it has been held by various decisions of this Court that this Court can direct the police to give necessary help in case it is found that it is just or in order to prevent an abuse of process of Court or when it is found absolutely necessary. Vadakkel, J. in the decision reported in Mammoo v. Krishnan 1978 KLT 901 held as follows :--
"The very foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to requisition police aid in order to discharge its function of giving effect to its decision being its inherent powers to which it can have resort only for the purpose of meeting ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court, the Court can exercise this power only when it is 'absolutely necessary', and, note 'no party has a right to insist the Court to exercise it'."
Kerala High Court
A. Abdul Rahim And Anr. vs Nazarullah And Anr. on 24 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 Ker 3
S. Sankarasubban, J.
1. This C.R.P. is filed challenging the order dated 3-8-1998 in I.A. 1858/1998 in O.S. 266/1997 on the file of the Munsiff's Courts Attingal. The petitioners arc the defendants in the case, while the respondents arc the plaintiffs. After the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. 1202 of 1997 for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or digging soil from therein for the purpose of making out any channel through the plaint schedule property and doing any acts to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs or doing rafting of husk in the water logged area or from causing any damage to the rafted husk in the water logged portions. An interim injunction was granted. Thereafter after hearing the defendants the order was confirmed. It seems, the defendants had also filed suit as O.S. 32/1997 and therein they had filed I.A. 164/1997 for temporary injunction. That was also heard along with I.A. 1202/1997. But, that application was dismissed. Against the above common order, the petitioners
have preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before the Sub Court, Attingal and the appeals are pending.
2. The injunction order was passed on 6-7-1998. On 4-8-1998, the respondents filed a petition for police protection. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed along with the petition the respondents have stated that the petitioners obstructed the putting up of the boundary on the southern side of the plaint schedule property. Hence, they prayed for police protection against the defendants from obstructing the construction of boundary on the southern side. That is the application I.A. 1858/1998. This application was moved on 5-8-1998. The learned counsel for the petitioners wanted time to file objections; but without granting time, the Munsiff heard that petition on that day and passed orders on 5-8-1998 itself. The lower Court has directed the Circle Inspector of Police, Kazhakkuttom to render necessary police protection to the plaintiffs to put fencing around the plaint schedule property especially on the southern side of the property so as to see that the injunction order is implemented. It is against the above order, the revision petition is filed.
3. I heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri G. S. Raghunath contended that the order for police protection given by the Court below is without jurisdiction and without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections. He contended that there was no hurry to pass the order on 5-8-1998 itself. Further he contended that the police protection was given to put up boundaries. There was no complaint that the interim order of injunction was violated by the petitioners; nor any petition tiled to take action against them. Learned counsel contended that even though a civil Court may have power to grant police protection, but that could not have been given in a case like this, where there has been no adjudication regarding the boundaries. He further submitted that after obtaining the order of injunction, the respondents have put up a bund and a boundary fencing. He contended that these acts will prejudice the hearing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Original Suit.
4A. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents Sri. P. Sukumaran Nayar contended that the plaintiffs had obtained an order of injunction to enjoy the plaint schedule property. Putting up of boundaries is one of the mode of enjoyment. But when that was objected to by the petitioners, the respondents moved for police protection. There is inherent power in every Court to order police protection in order to see that the order passed by the Court is honoured. He further contended that even though a bund was put up by the respondents after getting police protection, that was removed after the interim order was passed in C.M.P. 3208/1998 on 21-8-1998. He contended that so far as the injunction is alive, the respondents have got every right to move the police in order to see that the order passed is not violated.
5. The question before me, therefore, is whether the Court below was justified in ordering police protection. No doubt it is true that it has been held by various decisions of this Court that this Court can direct the police to give necessary help in case it is found that it is just or in order to prevent an abuse of process of Court or when it is found absolutely necessary. Vadakkel, J. in the decision reported in Mammoo v. Krishnan, 1978 Ker LT 901, held as follows :-- "The very foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to requisition police aid in order to discharge its function of giving effect to its decision being its inherent powers to which it can have resort only for the purpose of meeting ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court, the Court can exercise this power only when it is 'absolutely necessary', and, note 'no party has a right to insist the Court to exercise it'."
In Mohammad v. Mohammed Haji, 1986 Ker LT 134, Pareed Pillay, J. (as he then was) had held as follows :--
"In order to do justice or to prevent abuse of 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".
In Shantaram v. Dagubai, AIR 1987 Bombay 182, on behalf of the Division Bench, Rule A.
Jahagirdar, J. has held that the inherent powers of a Court are in addition to and complementary to the powers expressly conferred upon it by other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and they are not intended to enable a Court to create rights in the parties, but they are meant to enable the Court to pass such orders for the ends of justice as may be necessary.
6. After hearing the counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the Court below was not right in giving police protection to the respondents. First of all, the Court should have granted time to the petitioners to file their objections. It was not so urgent that if it was not granted the heaven would fall. Secondly there was no complaint that the defendants-petitioners have violated any portion of the injunction order. On the other hand, the complaint was that the petitioners were not allowing the putting up of boundary on the southern side of the boundary. The putting up of boundary was not an issue at all then. Further it was not justifiable on the part of the Court to direct police aid in order to put up boundaries. It will be easy for a party to put up boundaries with police help. The Police does not know regarding the boundaries of each property and on what basis the boundaries were put. If in fact there was a threat against putting up boundaries, the Court could have appointed a Commissioner, who could have supervised the construction. The order has virtually helped the plaintiffs, in putting up a boundary and this may sometimes affect the future course of litigation.
In the above view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order. The police will not give further protection to the respondents to put up boundaries. In spite of the fact that boundaries have been put up the Court below will not, as a matter of course, decree the suit on the basis of the putting up of boundaries. The Courts where Civil Miscellaneous Appeals as well as the Original Suit are pending shall dispose of them without taking into consideration the putting up of the boundaries on the basis of the police protection.
The C.R.P. is allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment