Whether court can give police aid at the first instance to execute possession warrant of eviction decree?

 A perusal of the record shows that the decree for eviction was passed way back on 26th February, 2020 and time, in accordance with the provisions of the DRC Act, was already given to the Tenant. The Tenant ought to have availed of its legal remedies in accordance with law. However, till date i.e. almost eight months having passed by, there is no appeal filed by the Tenant nor is there a stay order against the decree. Even the appeal filed before the ARCT was not maintainable and was withdrawn.{Para 9}

10. Under such circumstances, merely on the ground that the Nazarat Branch is not working due to Covid, non-issuance of warrants of possession cannot be justified. The valuable rights of the Landlord are being taken away due to a logistical issue, with which the Landlord is not concerned.

11. A perusal of the notification issued by the High Court of Delhi dated 15th March, 2010 shows that there is a general practice direction which has been passed in respect of speedy disposal of the case under the DRC Act. The relevant portion of the above is set out herein below: -

“Power to render police aid -in execution proceedings — The Rent Controllers/Additional Rent Controllers shall be empowered to order for police aid at the first instance in the execution proceedings so as to ensure quicker delivery of possession to the decree holder, by giving appropriate directions to the concerned SHO.”

12. From the above, it is clear that police aid can be granted even at first instance so as to ensure quick delivery of possession to the decree holder.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 CM (M) 555/2020 & CM APPLs.28419/2020, 28420/2020

MRS. SAVITRI DEVI  Vs  MRS. SANTOSHI BHUTANI 

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Date of decision: 9th November, 2020

Print Page

Supreme court: Precaution to be taken by court before granting police aid for execution of decree

 Order 21 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for endorsement by the officer entrusted with the execution that if he is unable to execute the process, the court shall examine the reasons for the alleged inability and pass appropriate orders. No report was submitted by the bailiff asking for police assistance in execution for reasons specified. Likewise, there is no report Under Order 21 Rule 35(3) Code of Civil Procedure requesting for police assistance for effectuating delivery of possession. There is no material if the application before the Tehsildar was made by the bailiff or the decree holder. Be that as it may, we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the police with regard to the delivery of possession by resorting to a manner outside the procedure of the court, using the court orders as an umbrella was wholly unwarranted. The executive authorities were completely unjustified in their over enthusiasm without asking for proper court orders regarding police assistance despite the fact that they were fully aware that possession was to be delivered in pursuance of a court order. 

{Para 13}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8175 of 2019 

Decided On: 21.10.2019

Om Parkash Vs  Amar Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/1447/2019,2020(2) MHLJ 803

Print Page

Supreme Court: Police aid should not be provided for execution of decree without order of court

Order 21 Rule 25 of the CPC provides for endorsement by

the officer entrusted with the execution that if he is unable to

execute the process, the court shall examine the reasons for the

alleged inability and pass appropriate orders. No report was

submitted by the bailiff asking for police assistance in execution

for reasons specified. Likewise, there is no report under Order 21

Rule 35(3) CPC requesting for police assistance for effectuating

delivery of possession. There is no material if the application

before the Tehsildar was made by the bailiff or the decree holder.

Be that as it may, we are constrained to hold that the procedure

adopted by the police with regard to the delivery of possession by

resorting to a manner outside the procedure of the court, using

the court orders as an umbrella was wholly unwarranted. The

executive authorities were completely unjustified in their over

enthusiasm without asking for proper court orders regarding

police assistance despite the fact that they were fully aware that

possession was to be delivered in pursuance of a court order.

NONREPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).8175 OF 2019

OM PARKASH  Vs AMAR SINGH

NAVIN SINHA, J.
Dated:October 21, 2019.

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court while granting police aid for execution of decree

 In the said decision it has been further held that an order of Police help vitally effects all persons in actual possession of the property. With the powerful backing of such an order all persons in actual possession whether they are bound by the decree or not are likely to be evicted from the property summarily, the Court should therefore proceed with great caution in granting Police help. The paragraph 14 of the said reported decision being relevant is quoted below.

"(14) An order for police help vitally effects all persons in actual possession of the property. With the powerful backing of such an order all persons in actual possession whether they are bound by the decree or not are likely to be evicted brevi manu from the property summarily. Relief by way of restoration of possession obtained by an application under Order 21, Rule 100 is poor consolation for a person who is unlawfully dispossessed. The Court should, therefore, proceed with great caution in granting police help. The Court should not hesitate to give such aid if execution of its process is unlawfully obstructed and its process cannot be executed without such aid: But where there is a bona fide claim by an occupant that he is not bound by the decree and as such is entitled to resist eviction in execution of the decree the Court may and should decline to give such aid until his claim is negative in appropriate proceedings; See Debendra Nath v. Parul Bala, MANU/WB/0082/1953 : 88 Cat LJ 105 at pp. 106, 107 : (AIR 1953 Cal 233 at p. 233) (L) and Sew Sankar Lal v. Bejoy Krishna Dutta, MANU/WB/0074/1953 : 57 Cal WN 65 at p. 66: (AIR 1953 Cal 218 at pp. 218, 219) (M). The claimant is vitally affected by an order for Police help and is entitled to be heard on an application praying for such help. The Court has unfettered discretion and ample power to do justice. The Court may examine any person it thinks fit and hear him. If necessary, the Court may direct notice to all persons in actual possession by advertisement or otherwise. The decree holder is under a duty to disclose full facts. An order for police help obtained improperly or by suppression of material facts is liable to be set aside. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

C.O. No. 199 of 2018

Decided On: 06.09.2018

 Reba Mondal Vs.  Sandhya Paul and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Biswajit Basu, J.

Citation: AIR 2019(NOC)61 Cal

Print Page

Whether Police can interfere in a civil case unless directed by a competent Court?

 In the light of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, it is obvious that this writ petition is mis-conceived. The petitioner ought to have proceeded in the civil court by filing execution petition and sought for orders for police-aid to protect his possession. The Police cannot interfere in any civil dispute unless there is an order by the competent court to them to protect the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits in this writ petition. 

In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

(Before Gudiseva Shyam Prasad, J.)

Tirumala Siva Prasad 

v.

The State of Andhra Pradesh 

Writ Petition No. 150 of 2016

Decided on April 17, 2018

Print Page

Whether application for police protection can be rejected if wrong provision is quoted?

 But merely because an application for police
protection was filed only under Section 151 CPC invoking
the inherent jurisdiction, it cannot be a reason for the
High Court to reject it and hold that the application
should have been filed under Order XXI, Rule 32 CPC. The
crucial question is whether the Execution Court has
jurisdiction. That is not disputed. The only thing is that
an exact provision was not invoked. That by itself shall
not be a reason for rejecting the application (See
Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Ben
 Hiraben Manilal1 and T. Nagappa v. Y. R. Muralidhar2). In
case, the Execution Court has the jurisdiction and has
otherwise followed the procedure under the Rules, the
action has to be upheld. One relevant question is also
whether the judgment debtor has suffered any injury or
whether any prejudice has been caused to him. If the
answer is in the negative, as in the instant case, the
execution must proceed. The impugned judgment is hence set
aside, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the
Execution Court is restored.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9916 OF 2017

RAJA VENKATESWARLU  Vs MADA VENKATA SUBBAIAH 
Dated:JULY 31, 2017.
Citation:(2017) 15 SCC 659

Print Page

Whether preliminary decree for partition can be executed?

 The final decree proceedings were taken after the passing of the preliminary decree. We are not much concerned regarding the division of the revenue yielding estate and other moveable property. It is an admitted position that a Commissioner was appointed by the Court for effecting the partition of the house. It appears that the Commissioner on giving opportunities to the contesting parties, finalised a Scheme for partition. The report of the Commissioner was put before the Court. Objections were raised to that report by the contesting parties. The Court ultimately passed an order overruling the objections raised by the present petitioner. It is an admitted position prevailing even to-day that the Court has not yet passed the final decree. In spite of this, the advocate appearing for the plaintiff-decree-holder in the trial Court, presented a Regular Darkhast before the Court. The illegality has crept in right from the inception of this Darkhast and it pains tremendously to point out that an advocate has contributed substantially to the final outcome. During the course of this Special Darkhast, the warrant of possession came to be issued by the Court directing the bailiff to put the decree-holder in possession of the ground floor of the house, though in fact there was no decree to that effect. The Court not only issued the warrant, but on the pt her hand granted police help to the decree-holder, so that the possession could be effectively delivered to the decree-holder. With the help of police, the bailiff put the decree-holder in possession of the property and a record was accordingly submitted to the court.
Thus, the whole process of putting the decree-holder in possession of the property is vitiated. In my opinion, the execution application could not be filed before the Court, nor could the Court issue a warrant, nor could the Bailiff execute that warrant, nor could any police aid be granted by the Court. Thus, the process being vitiated, there is no justification for the decree-holder remaining and continuing in possession of the property. I would set aside the order passed by the trial Court and direct the Court to put the judgment-debtor (present petitioner) in possession of the property which he lost due to illegal action. 

Bombay High Court

Vishwasrao vs Ushabai And Anr. on 11 February, 1987

Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 Bom 392, 1987 (1) BomCR 707

Bench: S Ratnaparkhi

Print Page

Whether police aid can be granted when there is dispute as to identity of property?

However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order. Under the guise of an order of ad-interim injunction and also the corresponding police aid granted there may be a possibility of vacating from the property in the litigation a person who is in actual possession of the property as of right. Therefore, whenever such order of granting police aid is resisted it is advisable to hear both the parties to the litigation and dispose of the petition filed for interim injunction pending disposal of the main proceedings itself. Further some times question of identity of the property in dispute arises. Thereby unless there is clear identity of the property in dispute mere granting of Police aid would not be suffice. In such case, an Advocate Commissioner is to be appointed necessarily to localize the property and only subject to the localization of the properties, necessary Police aid can be granted or both the Police aid and localization of the property can be granted simultaneously to do what is needed.

Andhra High Court

B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy And Others vs K. Naga Raju Yadav And Another on 4 January, 2013

Coram:  SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

Citation: 2013(2)ALD626, 2013(1)ALT532

Print Page

Whether 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

Print Page

Whether court can give police aid for enforcement of exparte order of Injunction?

Citation: AIR1999Ker383, ILR1999(3)Kerala455, 1999(2)KLJ208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

W.A. No. 1607 of 1999

Decided On: 22.07.1999

Appellants: Adhikarath Valappil Kunhumuhammed alias Kunhippa and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Korath Illath Valappil Mammi alias Bava Haji and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.R. Lakshmanan, Actg. C.J. and S. Sankarasubban, J.

Constitution of India, Article 226--Police protection --Direction to give police protection on the basis of ex parte order of injunction--No notice to the opposite party--Direction is illegal.

The Appellants are Respondents 12, 13 and 14, in the Original Petition. The Original petition was filed by Respondents 1 to 3 for a direction to the police to grant adequate police protection to enjoy their properties without any obstruction from Respondent 4 to 14. It was alleged in the Original Petition that police refused to give police protection in spite of an order of ex parte injunction against the Respondents 4 to 14 and that they failed to discharge their statutory duties. When the Original Petition came up for orders the learned Judge without ordering notice to the Respondents straight away ordered police protection "if there is violation of the injunction order". The order is challenged in appeal. It was contended for the Appellants that taking advantage of the injunction order, the Petitioners in the Original Petition are proceeding further with the construction unauthorisedly and that the Appellants have entered appearance before the court below and contested the matter that the Petitioners have no title or possession of the property. Allowing the appeal;

Held: The basis for seeking police protection from this Court is the ex parte ad interim injunction order passed by the Munsiff. The facts would disclose that the Respondents 1 to 3 have obtained an order in the Original Petition disclosing the entire facts and circumstance. This Court shall not interfere in matters involving civil rights with an order of police protection on the basis of an ad interim ex parte order of the civil court and that only a final order passed under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be enforced with the assistance of the police. We, therefore, hold that the Judgment of the learned Single Judge ordering police protection in case of violation of the ex parte injunction order is not in order and by the impugned Judgment police authorities are given the right to decide whether there is a violation of the injunction order passed by the Civil Court. We also feel that courts shall be reluctant to grant police protection on the basis of ex parte injunction orders, which would only pave the way for further litigation between parties, since the parties, on the basis of the police protection order and with the connivance of the police, complete constructions or commit waste or do other acts which they would not be able to do even after final orders are passed by the Civil Court.

Print Page

Whether court can grant police aid under its inherent powers?

In view of these clear observations of their Lordships with regard to the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the Court u/S. 151, Civil P. C., we are clearly of the opinion that in order to do justice between the parties or to prevent the abuse of process of the 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. That the police authorities owe a legal duty to the public to enforce the law is clear from a decision of the Court of Appeal, reported in R. v. Metropolitan Police Commr., (1968) 1 All ER 763, where Lord Denning M. R. observed at page 769 as follows:

"I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is of every Chief Constable to enforce the law of the land. . . . but in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone."

8. It is no doubt that the Police help is an extraordinary mode or procedure to implement the execution of the decree or orders. In other words, Police help is to be regarded as an extreme step, and as such it should not be recommended unless the Court is fully convinced of the existence of a grave emergency. Therefore, a decree-holder praying for police help has to state whether such help is required either;

(i) because of apprehension of violence or obstruction from judgment-debtor himself or at his instance by others or;

(ii) because of conditions of a general character such as the locality where execution will have to be effected being in a disturbed state or a class of people, similarly situated being likely to make, a common cause with judgment-debtor and resist execution.

Thus, the special procedure for police help would not be allowed unless there are reasonable grounds to suppose that the execution will not be effected without serious danger to public peace, because of apprehension of violance or obstruction from the judgment-debtor himself or because of the conditions of general character as such where the execution will have to be done in disturb stage or a class of people similarly situated being likely to make common cause that the judgment-debtor can resist the execution.

Besides this, in addition to the circumstances enumerated above to grant police help the Court must be fully convinced of the existing of grave emergency and to prevent commission of cognizable offence by the judgment-debtor or on his behalf by any person or a third party.

Bombay High Court

Shrimati Ratnabai, Adv. W/O ... vs Shri Satwarao S/O Narayanrao Naik on 17 June, 1994

Equivalent citations: AIR 1995 Bom 61, (1994) 96 BOMLR 662

Bench: B Wahane

Print Page

Whether preliminary decree for partition can be executed?

The final decree proceedings were taken after the passing of the preliminary decree. We are not much concerned regarding the division of the revenue yielding estate and other moveable property. It is an admitted position that a Commissioner was appointed by the Court for effecting the partition of the house. It appears that the Commissioner on giving opportunities to the contesting parties, finalised a Scheme for partition. The report of the Commissioner was put before the Court. Objections were raised to that report by the contesting parties. The Court ultimately passed an order overruling the objections raised by the present petitioner. It is an admitted position prevailing even to-day that the Court has not yet passed the final decree. In spite of this, the advocate appearing for the plaintiff-decree-holder in the trial Court, presented a Regular Darkhast before the Court. The illegality has crept in right from the inception of this Darkhast and it pains tremendously to point out that an advocate has contributed substantially to the final outcome. During the course of this Special Darkhast, the warrant of possession came to be issued by the Court directing the bailiff to put the decree-holder in possession of the ground floor of the house, though in fact there was no decree to that effect. The Court not only issued the warrant, but on the pt her hand granted police help to the decree-holder, so that the possession could be effectively delivered to the decree-holder. With the help of police, the bailiff put the decree-holder in possession of the property and a record was accordingly submitted to the court.

Bombay High Court

Vishwasrao vs Ushabai And Anr. on 11 February, 1987

Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 Bom 392, 
1987 (1) BomCR 707

Bench: S Ratnaparkhi

Print Page

Guidelines for grant of police aid for implementation of court orders

The lower Courts are frequently confronted with the question of issuing police protection. Since the issuance of police aid is often raised in one way or other, by the lower Courts it is appropriate to issue the following guide lines:

*** In appropriate cases, Civil Court has the power to issue suitable directions to police officials as servants of law to extend their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders of Civil Courts or in implementing an order of injunction passed by it. (1992 TLNJ 120).

*** Ordering police protection has got serious consequences, impinging on the rights of the parties.

*** Police aid is not to be granted simultaneously with an order of injunction.

*** In cases where the lower Courts order police protection/police aid in the execution of decrees and orders of the civil Courts or in implementing an order of injunction passed by it, the Court is to record reasons as to how and why the case is the appropriate case to order police aid and for what purpose the police aid is ordered.

*** Police protection/police aid may not be ordered by a non-speaking order. Order of Court for police aid might give room for the parties to take law into their own hands. The party having the order of Court for police aid, might try to disturb the status quo - either by trying to take possession or trying to dispossess the opponent.

*** Order of the Court for police protection is to specifically indicate in precise terms the purpose for which police protection is ordered.

Madras High Court

Abdul Sukhure Bhai vs Durai Kuppuswamy on 23 June, 2005

Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 Mad 186, 2006 (2) CTC 211
Bench: R Banumathi

Print Page

Whether court can grant police aid for execution of decree and for implementation of injunction order?

This Court has observed, in the case of Ratanabi v. Satwarao
"It is no doubt that the Police help is an extraordinary mode or procedure to implement the execution of the decree of orders. In other words, Police help is to be regarded as an extreme step, and as such it should not be recommended unless the Court is fully convinced of the existence of a grave emergency. Therefore, a decree-holder praying for police help has to state whether such help is required either;
(1) because of apprehension of violence or obstruction from judgment-debtor himself or at his instance by others or; (ii) because of conditions of a general character such as the locality where execution will have to be effected being in a disturbed state or a class of people, similarly situated being likely to make a common cause with judgment-debtor and resist execution.
Thus, the special procedure for police help would not be allowed unless there are reasonable ground to suppose that the execution will not be effected without serious danger to public peace, because of apprehension of violence or obstruction from the judgment-debtor himself or because of the conditions of general character as such where the execution will have to be done in disturb stage or a class of people similarly situated being likely to make common cause that the judgment-debtor can resist the execution.
Besides this, in addition to the circumstances enumerated above to grant police help the Court must be fully convinced of the existing of grave emergency and to prevent commission of cognizable offence by the judgment-debtor or on his behalf by any person or a third party."

Bombay High Court

Smt. Nirabai J. Patil vs Narayan D. Patil on 10 October, 2003

Equivalent citations: AIR 2004 Bom 225, 2004 (3) BomCR 226, 2004 (1) MhLj 1058

Bench: A Oka

Print Page