High Court · 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 20-01-2005CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARANC.R.P. (PD) No. 2172 of 2003andC.M.P. No. 16279 of 2003-o-1. Kannatti @ Ramasamy Gounder2. Gopal... Petitioners/PlaintiffsVersus1. Anai Gounder2. V. Krishnan3. V. Ramalingam4. Gunasundari5. Muthammal6. Govindan7. Gopal8. Backiyam9. Dhanam10. Neelambal... Respondents/DefendantsRevision under Article 227 of The Constitution ofIndia against the order dated 22-08-2003 made in I.A. No.682 of 2002 in I.A. No. 572 of 2002 in O.S. No. 133 of 2002on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Omalur.For Petitioners :Mr. V. BharathidasanFor Respondents :Mr. D. Shivakumaran for RR1 to 4NA for RR 5 to 10ORDERThe Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners herein,who have filed the suit for permanent injunction. Alongwith the suit, the petitioners have filed I.A. No.572 of2002 for interim injunction, which was granted exparte bythe trial court on 10-10-2002, till 01-11-2002. On20-10-2002, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 682 of 2002for police aid, which was dismissed by the trial court byits common order dated 22-08-2003 along with I.A. No. 572of 2002 for interim injunction, however, this revision isfiled only against the order of dismissal of theapplication for police aid.2.Both sides have not let in either oral or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ documentary evidence before the trial court. On 10-10-2002,the trial court granted exparte interim injunction in I.A.No. 572 of 2002 till 01-11-2002. On 01-11-2002, therespondents entered appearance through their counsel andfiled counter in the said I.A. No. 572 of 2002 in I.A. No.682 of 2002. It was stated that on 11-10-2002, therespondents and their men prevented the petitioners fromdrawing water through Raja Vaikkal and on 14-10-2002 therespondents threatened the petitioners with direconsequence, with the result, an oral complaint was givenby the petitioners on 14-10-2002 with the Omalur policestation. The trial court found that in respect of the saidallegations, the petitioners have not placed any iota ofevidence; whereas, the respondents herein have denied allthe averments made by the petitioners; the trial courtfurther found that though the petitioners have stated inthe affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 682 of 2002 thatin O.S. No. 192 of 1998 an application in I.A. No. 628 of1998 was filed for interim mandatory injunction and thesaid application was allowed on 20-04-2000 with a directionto the respondents herein to restore Raja Vaikkal, but thesaid order was also not placed before it. It is alsomentioned in the order of the trial court that an advocatecommissioner has inspected Raja Vaikkal on 23-02-2003 andtill that date the said Vaikkal was in disrepair condition,while so, the averment that the respondents herein havedamaged the Raja Vaikkal are unbeleivable, besides it isimpossible to use the said Vaikkal by the petitioners anddraw water.3.In this case, exparte interim injunction wasgranted by the trial court under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPCon 10-10-2002, till 01-11-2002. On 01-11-2002, therespondents herein entered appearance through their counseland filed their counter. 4. Admittedly, there is no express provision in thecode for the purpose of implementation. It cannot be saidthat the exercise of inherent power under Section 151 ofCPC is devoid of jurisdiction. There is no expressprovision in the code prohibiting the exercise of such apower of the Court and the Court can give appropriatedirection at the instance of the aggrieved parties to thepolice authorities to render its aid for enforcement of theorder in a lawful manner. Followed (Rayapati Audemma v.Pothineni Narasimham) AIR 1971 Andhra Pradesh 53 wherein inpara-9 it was held thus:-"9.If the police authorities areunder a legal duty to enforce the lawand the public or the citizens areentitled to seek directions underArticle 226 of the Constitution fordischarge of such duties by the policeauthorities we feel that the civilcourts can also give appropriate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directions under Section 151 Civil P.C.to render aid to the aggrieved partiesfor the due and proper implementationof the order of Court. It cannot besaid that in such a case the exerciseof the inherent power under Section 151Civil P.C. is devoid of jurisdiction.There is no express provision in thecode prohibiting the exercise of such apower of the Court and the Court cangive appropriate directions at theinstance of the aggrieved parties tothe police authorities to render itsaid for enforcement of the Court'sorder in a lawful manner. 5.The apex Court in the decision reported in (PadamSen v. State of Uttar Pradesh) AIR 1961 SC 218 wherein itwas held thus:-"The inherent powers of the Court are inaddition to the powers specificallyconferred on the Court by the Code. Theyare complementary to those powers and,therefore, it must be held that theCourt is free to exercise them for thepurpose mentioned in Section 151 of theCode when the exercise of those powersis not in any way in conflict with whathas been expressly provided in the Codeor against the intentions of theLegislature."In the above case, their Lordships, with regard to thescope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court underSection 151 CPC held that in order to do justice betweenthe parties or to prevent abuse of process of the Court,the Civil Court has ample jurisdiction to give direction tothe police authorities to render aid to the aggrievedparties with regard to the implementation of the orders ofthe Court or exercise of a right created under orders ofthe Court.6.In the decision reported in (Century Flour MillsLtd., v. S. Subbiah and another) 1975 MLJ Volume II PageNo.54, a full bench of this Court held in para-8 asfollows: "8.In our opinion, the inherentpowers of this Court under section 151of the Code of Civil Procedure are wideand are not subject to any limitation.Where in violation of a stay order orinjunction against a party, somethinghas been done in disobedience, it will https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be the duty of the Court as a policy toset the wrong right and not allow theperpetuation of the wrong doing. In ourview, the inherent power will not onlybe available in such a case, but it isbound to be exercised in that manner inthe interest of justice....."7.In view of the above, it is clear that underSection 151 CPC, directions can be issued to the police forthe execution of the decrees or orders or to render aid tothe aggrieved parties for due and proper implementation ofthe order of temporary injunction or a decree or permanentinjunction granted by civil Courts.8.In this case, the petitioners have sought forpolice aid by filing an application on 20-10-2002 based onthe injunction granted on 10-10-2002, which was then inforce upto 01-11-2002. On 01-11-2002, the respondentsherein have entered appearance through their counsel andfiled their counter setting out certain facts and denyingthe averments of the petitioners. 9.The trial court dismissed the application forpolice aid on two grounds namely the petitioner has notproved the averments against the respondents mentioned inthe affidvit filed in support of the application and thesecond ground is that the respondents are unable toimplement the order because the canal namely Raja Vaikkalwas disconnected and in disrepair condition, hence it wasnot fit for drawing water.10.It is to be remembered whether the Court canexercise its power to grant police aid automaticallypursuant to the interim order granted already or apply itsmind as to the necessity of police aid. Section 151 CPCsays nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit orotherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to makesuch orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice orto prevent abuse of process of the Court. All such powers,as may be necessary to do right and to undo a wrong in thecourse of administration of justice constitute an inherentpower of the Court. The inherent power are to be exercisedby the Court in very exceptional circumstances for whichthe Code lays no procedure. 11.In the decision reported in (Manoharlal Chopra v.Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Sethi Hiralal) AIR 1962 SC 527, theHonourable Supreme Court held that inherent power has notbeen conferred on the Court, it is a power inherent in theCourt by virtue of its duties to do justice between theparties before it.12.Rule 3A of Order 39 CPC contemplates that wherean injunction has been granted without giving notice to theopposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ finally dispose of the application within thirty days fromthe date on which the injunction was granted; and where itis unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for suchinability. Rule 4 of Order 39 CPC provides for vacation ofexparte injunction on the ground that a false of misleadingstatement had been made in the application for injunction.A further proviso had been added to the effect that wherean injunction has been granted after giving to a party anopportunity of being heard, the order for injunction shallnot be decided, varied or set aside on the application ofthat party except where such discharge, variation orcancellation is necessiated by the change in thecircumstance or by reason of the hardship caused by it.When any party makes an application for discharge,variation or setting aside an exparte order, it is the dutyof the Court to decide such objection raised to the passingof the injunction order. 13.When counter filed by the respondents is pendingconsideration or in the absence of valid evidence forgranting police aid, it is not incumbent on the part of thecivil Court to exercise its power under Section 151 CPC.It is not proper to enforce the interim order of injunctionwhen its continuance is opposed by other side. Asmentioned in the preamble, the injunction application wasalso dismissed by the trial court along with theapplication for police aid by its common order dated 22-08-2003. Hence, I hold that it is not automatic to grantpolice aid by exercising the power under Section 151 CPCpursuant to the exparte order of injunction granted. Inthis case, the reason for not granting police aid alsoassigned by the court below. 14.I am satisfied with the reasons assigned by thecourt below for dismissing the application for police aid.Hence, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,connected CMP is closed. Considering the facts andcircumstance of the case, the trial court is directed todispose of the suit on merits within a period of threemonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe District Munsif cum Judicial MagistrateDistrict Munsif CourtOmalur, Salem District+1cc to Mr.D.Shivakumaran Advocate Sr 2408+1cc to Mr.V.Bharathidasan Advocate Sr 2488TY (CO)km/28.1.CRP PD No.2172 of 2003