The petitioners have raised the challenge to the order, dated 12/12/2008 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Honnali on I.A. No.IV in O.S.No.182/2007 (Annexure-B).

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent filed the suit against the respondents seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit proceedings, she also made I.A.No.I for the grant of temporary injunction. The Trial Court, by its order, dated 15/4/2008 granted the temporary injunction after hearing both the sides. The respondent filed I.A.No.IV ventilating her grievance before the Trial Court that the petitioners are unnecessarily obstructing her in the use of the road. It was the further grievance of the respondent that she approached the police seeking their protection but in vain. She therefore had to file the said I.A. seeking a direction to the Police Sub-Inspector (P.S.I. for short). Honnali to give police protection to the respondent for enjoying the suit schedule property. The Trial Court, by its order, dated 12/12/2008 allowed I.A.No.IV by directing the P.S.I., Honnali to give necessary police protection to the respondent, her family members and her coolies to make use of the road mentioned in the plaint schedule. Aggrieved by the said order, this petition is presented.

3. Sri S.V.Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case of violation or breach of the temporary injunction order, the one and the only course open to the aggrieved party is to make the necessary application under Order 39 Rule 2-A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C. for short). The police protection can neither be sought nor be given to obey the temporary injunction order. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manchegowda & Another V. M.Madaiah, reported in 1987(1) KLJ 119, wherein it is held that the Court cannot give direction to the police to implement the order of temporary injunction in view of the specific provisions contained in Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C. The learned counsel has also relied upon the unreported order dated 21/9/2001 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hanamawwa V. B Allabaksh & Others, in Contempt of Court Case No.1936/99 (Civil). The relevant portion of the said unreported order is extracted herein below.

“4. No doubt, if there is any violation of injunction or breach of the order one can approach the competent Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C, and the Court is competent to take action. Further, if any order is passed, there is a provision to file appeal against that order.”

4. Nextly, the learned counsel contends that the order in question suffers from non-application of mind. The Trial Court has not applied its mind as to the boundaries, schedule, etc., of the properties in question. According to the learned counsel, the order in question has enabled the police to sit in judgment over the order of the Trial Court. He submits as far as the petitioners are concerned, it is a very serious matter. The schedule given in the plaint and the particulars mentioned in the temporary injunction order are not clear; the petitioners are disputing the very existence of the road.

5. I have gone through the I.A.No.IV, its supporting affidavit, the objections thereto and the order dated 12/12/2008. It is worthwhile to mention here that the granting of the temporary injunction order itself is not challenged.

6. The Division Bench’s order in Hanamawwa’s case (supra) does not come to the petitioners’ rescue in any way. The sum and substance of the said order is that the aggrieved party cannot resort to the filling of the contempt case, when there is an alternative remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C. The granting of the direction to the police to enforce the temporary injunction order did not fall for consideration in the said case before the Division Bench. The view taken in Manchegowda’s case (supra) does not co