Part-VI
In the preceding parts of this series, we have examined the scope and application of the inherent powers vested in civil courts and the circumstances in which such powers may be exercised to advance the cause of justice. In this final part, we turn to an issue that frequently arises at the stage of implementation of judicial orders—the grant of police aid by civil courts.
A decree or judicial order is meaningful only when it can be effectively implemented. At times, despite the existence of a valid order, its enforcement may be obstructed by resistance, interference, apprehension of breach of peace, or deliberate attempts to frustrate the authority of the court. In such situations, an important question arises: can a civil court direct the police to provide assistance for securing compliance with its orders, and if so, under what circumstances and under which legal powers?
The question assumes particular significance because the power to seek or direct police assistance is not to be treated as an automatic or routine consequence of every civil order. Its exercise involves a careful balance between the court’s duty to ensure effective administration of justice and the limits of its procedural and inherent jurisdiction.
This final part will therefore examine the how, when and under what powers police aid may be granted by civil courts, with particular focus on the role of the court’s inherent jurisdiction. It will also consider the principles evolved by the courts while determining when police assistance is justified, the circumstances warranting such relief, and the safeguards against its misuse.
The discussion ultimately seeks to answer a practical question that lies at the intersection of civil procedure and effective enforcement: when the authority of a civil court’s order is met with resistance, to what extent can the court call upon the police to ensure that justice is effectively carried out?
No specific provision is provided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1973 (CPC) for enabling a civil court to order police assistance to a party to a case. But the civil court can direct the police to give assistance in implementing its own orders. In giving such directions the court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC (Moidu v Parth Sarathy & others : 1991 KHC 19).
Grant police assistance only when indispensable
The grant of police assistance should be made only when the court is fully convinced about the existence of grave emergency such as apprehension of violence by the person against whom the order has been passed. The power is to be exercised with great caution and only when the situation objectively warrants such an exercise of power.
The High Court of Kerala says a civil court can exercise its inherent powers only when it is absolutely necessary. It points out that 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”. (Abdul Rahim & anr v Nazarulla & anr : 1998 KHC 1299).
The court gets inherent powers by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it. The inherent power is a power in addition to what is specifically conferred by the statutes. The exercise of power should not go in conflict with what has been provided in law. It can be done only when it should not conflict with the existing laws in force.
The purpose of Section 151 of the CPC which cloths the civil court with inherent powers is to do the right and undo the wrong in the administration of justice.
Authorities must respect court orders
No authority in the state including police or revenue can ignore the finding of the civil court or refuse to take steps in implementing the order of the civil court. The party should get all help to maintain the law and order and in preventing the other party to contravene the injunction order of the court. However in implementing interim ex-parte injunction, issued without hearing the defendant, the civil court has no power to direct police assistance. The court can seek police assistance only in implementing its final orders issued after hearing both the parties (Kochu Pennu Ambujakshi & ors v Veluthakunju Vasu Channar & others: 1992 KHC 270).
For implementation and preventing violation of Interim Injunction
- To Stop Construction on the suit land
Law does not countenance a situation where orders passed by the Courts are allowed to be flouted with impunity. The legislature in its wisdom has incorporated various provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘Code’, for short) to ensure that orders passed by a civil court are implemented and obeyed by all concerned. Order XXI of the Code deals with executions of decrees and orders and the modes prescribed for execution of decree of injunction, under Rule 32 of Order XXI of the Code, are attachment of property or detention of the person disobeying the decree for injunction. Section 36 of the Code provides that provisions of the Code relating to execution of decrees be deemed to apply to the execution of the orders. Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code postulates consequences of disobedience or breech of injunction. Be it noted that there is no provision in the Code to direct for police assistance for enforcement or implementation of an order of temporary injunction. However, Section 151 of the Code saves inherent powers to Civil Court to make such orders as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. It is under this provision of law that Court is vested with the power to direct the police to provide necessary help in case of disobedience or breech of its order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code.
If an injunction order is not carried out, it is always open to the parties to seek police protection and Court is obliged to ensure that orders passed by it are implemented and are given effect to in its letter and spirit. If a Court is powerless to grant police assistance for the purpose of execution of order of temporary injunction, the very purpose of granting order of temporary injunction may be frustrated in a given case. Therefore, with a view to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of the Court, Civil Courts are vested with ample jurisdiction to provide police assistance for implementation of the orders passed or exercise of rights created under the orders of the court.
However, police aid cannot be granted on mere asking and grant of police assistance or aid is an extreme step and is required to be exercised with care and circumspection. The Court can grant assistance of police for enforcement or implementation of orders of temporary injunction, provided it is found that same is just or as observed earlier in order to prevent an abuse of the process of court or when it is found absolutely necessary. The object behind jurisdiction of a civil court to requisition the police aid in order to discharge its functions of giving effect to its decisions or orders, being inherent in nature, can be resorted to only for the purpose of meeting ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of law. It needs a specific mention that inherent powers of a civil court are in aid to and complementary to the powers expressly conferred upon it under the Code and they in no way are intended to create rights in the parties. The court is obliged to satisfy itself that prima facie, there is imminent threat of violation of an interim order passed by it and if police aid is declined, there is no way of ensuring effective compliance of its orders. It implies that once an injunction order is not carried out or obeyed, it is open to the parties to seek police protection to see that court order is implemented and not breeched.
An order of temporary injunction, be it ex parte or absolute, can be implemented through agency of police, if, as already observed, there is imminent threat of violation of the order. There is nothing in law to inhibit the power of a civil court to ensure that its order, be it ex parte or absolute, is implemented in its letter and spirit. (Chajju Singh Bharat Bhushan Gupta Vs Subash Aggarwal and others Chajju Singh and ors., 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 161)
- To prevent plaintiff from getting dispossessed
It is further submitted that petitioners gave police complaints with regard to some incidents and FIRs came to be registered against the respondents. Despite the same, the respondents have continued to disturb the lawful possession of the petitioners in violation of the interim order granted by the trial Court, which compelled the petitioners to file an application seeking police protection to protect their possession.
Court in the case of Smt.Karisiddamma and Others v. Smt.Sanna Kenchamma held that when a temporary injunction order is made absolute after hearing both the sides, there are no legal impediments in granting the police assistance for enforcing the temporary injunction order depending upon the gravity of the situation. Similarly in the case of Siddaramappa and Others v. Talavar Rangappa and Others referred supra held that when the order of temporary injunction has attained finality, both the parties to the lis are bound to obey the order passed by the trial Court and in case of any infraction to such order, the police protection can be provided. In the case of Sri.Manjunath Reddy v. Smt.V.Nagarathna and Others it was held that even where an ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction is passed, the defendant is bound to obey the order and if the order is not obeyed, the defendant cannot have any grievance against the order of having police protection.
Restoration of position
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi and Another reiterating the law laid down by it in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal referred supra at paragraph Nos.14 to 18 has held with regard to scope of Section 151 of CPC as under:
“14. Before we deal with this question of possession as to who was in actual possession at the relevant point of time it would be appropriate to note that the order for restoration was passed by the trial court on an application under Section 151 of the Code Civil Procedure. A question may arise whether such an application can be entertained by the court when specific provision under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made for grant of injunction in the form of mandatory order in the exercise of power under the said order.
15. On a bare perusal of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said to be in dispute that Section 151 confers wide powers on the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
16. The power of Section 151 to pass order of injunction in the form of restoration of possession of the code is not res integra now.
17. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal [AIR 1962 SC 527 : 1963 All LJ 169] while dealing with the power of the court to pass orders for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, this Court held that the courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary order of injunction in the circumstances which are not covered under the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it was held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure.
18. At the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order.”
This Court is conscious of the fact that there cannot be a continuous police aid or police protection to guard the properties of the petitioners. However, the same also cannot be a ground to deny the police aid whenever specific instances of interference by the respondents were brought to the notice of the police by the petitioners. Non-providing of police protection in such cases would give a ground for the respondents to defy the order of the temporary injunction granted by the Court. The Trial Court, while rejecting the application has further noted that the petitioners have filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A seeking action against the defendants for violation of injunction order, however, in my view, there is no impediment to entertain the application for police protection to seek for enforcement of the temporary injunction order just because the remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is available.( WRIT PETITION NO.51712/2019 (GM-CPC), Sri Balakrishna and Ors vs Sri KP Puttaraju and Ors)
- During Execution of Decrees
In the case of Rahul S.Shah Vs. Jitendra Kumar Gandhi reported in 20212) JLJR (SC) 459, Hon’ble Supreme Court made directions- the executing court must dispose of the Execution proceeding within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay-executing court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the concerned police station to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of decree further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the court, the same must be dealt with stringently in accordance with law.
Factors to be kept in mind while ordering police aid regarding implementation of Interim Orders
a) The nature of temporary injunction order passed by the trial Court.
b) The nature of police protection sought.
c) The trial Court shall consider the effect of granting and non-granting of police protection.
d) The trial Court shall satisfy itself that prima facie case is made out for grant of police protection based on the pleading and material on record.
e) The trial Court shall record the reasons while granting the police protection against the defendants as to whether the defendants are consistently violating the temporary injunction order with impunity and there is need for police protection or aid.
f) The trial Court shall also take note of the fact that whether the temporary injunction order – granted has attained finality and the application needs consideration even during the pendency of the appeal against the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court by recording the reasons for such urgency or otherwise.
g) The trial Court cannot order police protection mechanically. Each case has to be dealt based on the pleading, material on record and the nature of protection sought and nature of temporary injunction granted. Unless the trial Court satisfies itself that there is an imminent need for police aid/police help, it cannot order for police protection on mere request.
h) The exercise of power by the trial Court to consider the application for police protection is an inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of CPC. The trial Court may pass such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. i) There is no impediment for the trial Court to consider the application for police aid or protection merely because there is a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. The trial Court shall keep in mind the aforesaid factors and also consider other relevant material and factors while passing an order on the application for police protection or aid.