Nalina Ammal and Kalyankumar vs Lakshmi Ammal and The Inspector of Police

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—This revision has been preferred against the order in E.A. No. 717 of 2007 in O.S. No. 230 of 1991

on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Villupuram. The said E.A. No. 717 of 2007 was filed u/s 151 CPC for police aid to implement

the order of injunction passed in O.S. No. 230 of 1991 as confirmed in the second appeal in S.A. No. 1107 of 1995 of this Court. The learned

Prin(4)cipal District Munsif, after observing that the remedy open to the petitioners to file necessary application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, has

dismissed the application as not maintainable.

The point for determination in this revision is whether the petitioners are entitled to get an order for police aid to implement the decree in S.A.

No. 1107 of 1995. Event though the suit O.S. No. 230 of 1995 was dismissed as against Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property, the

suit was decreed in entirety in the second appeal in S.A. No. 1107 of 1995 of this Court. For putting up the toilet and bath room in Item No. 2,

the revision petitioners have filed C.M.P. No. 2481 of 1998 in S.A. No. 1107 of 1995 pending the second appeal. The said petition was allowed

by this Court on the basis of ratio decidenti in Sri-la-Sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami Vs. Sri-la-Sri Arunachalasamy Chidambaram and Another,

. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners relying on another Judgment of this Court in Al Fathima Munavera, Kither Mohamed

and Siddique Khathija Vs. S. Kandasamy, wherein the facts are similar in nature would contend that the police protection for a specific period can

be allowed to implement the decree in a civil suit. The facts of the said ratio relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision are runs as follows:

The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 461 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli got a decree in their favour on 1.10.2002 for the relief

of permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs thereafter made

arrangements to construct a compound wall in the suit property, but the same was effectively prevented by the men of the respondent. Hence the

plaintiffs have filed a complaint before the police, but the police did not take any action. Hence the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed an application

E.A. No. 886 of 2002 before the learned District Munsif, Tirunelveli to give a direction to the Police to give protection. The learned District Munsif

has dismissed the said application which resulted in preferring the said revision wherein it has been observed by the learned Judge of this Court as

follows:

As per the decision referred to above, Civil Court has got power to direct a police officer to give protection at the time of execution of the decree.

If decrees of the Court can be violated by parties and decree-holder is not able to enjoy the fruits of the decree and he could not enjoy the same

unless there is protection from police authorities, it is the duty of the Court to see that the decree granted by the Court is obeyed by the persons

concerned and the decree-holder is able to enjoy the fruits of the decree. There is nothing wrong in the Civil Court directing the police to give

protection to the person who has got an order of injunction in his favour.

The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Sri-la-Sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami v. Sri-la-Sri Arunachalasamy,

Chidambaram 1992 TNLJ 120 in the following line.

In view of the above position of law, it has to be held that in appropriate cases, directions u/s 151 of the CPC can be issued by the Civil Courts to

the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the order of temporary injunction or a decree

for permanent injunction granted by the Civil Courts.

Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the findings of the Court below in E.A. No. 717 of 2007 in O.S. No. 230 of 1991 is to be

interfered with.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that as far as Item No. 1 and 5 cents in Item No. 2 are concerned,the

petitioners can sought for the relief of police aid but not in respect of the undivided share in the well, pump set, switches etc in Item No. 2. The said

submission by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has got force and the petitioners cannot implement the decree in respect of the

undivided share in the well, motor pump set, switches etc in the item No. 2 with police aid unless the same is declared in partition. Barring

undivided share in respect of the Well, motor pump set, switches etc, the petitioners are entitled to implement the decree for the relief of injunction

in respect of the other properties ie., Item Nos.1 and 5 cents in Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule properties.

In fine, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed in E.A. No. 717 of 2007 in O.S. No. 230 of 1991 on the file of the Court of

Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, is set aside and E.A. No. 717 of 2007 is allowed and the petitioners are entitled to the police aid from the

second respondent viz., the Inspector of Police, Vikravandi, Villupuram, Taluk to implement the order of injunction in respect of Item No1 and 5

cents in Item No. 2 except the undivided share in Well motor pump set, switches etc in the plaint schedule properties for constructing a wall within

a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.