1. The present petitioners, who are defendant Nos.1 and 18 to 21 filed the above writ petition against the order dated 29.4.2015 allowing the application filed by the plaintiff on I.A.No.10 under Section 151 of CPC seeking police protection to implement the order of temporary injunction.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs before the Trial Court filed the suit in O.S.No.121/2002 for a declaration to declare that the right of cart road/track has been enjoyed from their ancestors and the same is being obstructed by the defendants unnecessarily. The defendants filed the written statement and resisted all the plaint averments and contended there is no such cart road/track existing in the suit schedule property as claimed by the plaintiffs and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit.

3. The plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction. After considering the application and the objections, the Trial Court by its order dated 11.6.2014 granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and restrained defendant Nos.1, 18 to 21 or their agents, and anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in R.S.Nos.39 and 41 shown as ABCDEFGH in the hand sketch map till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court defendant Nos.1, 18 to 21 filed Misc. Appeal No.9/2014 before the Appellate Court, Ranebennur, who after hearing both the parties by order dated 11.8.2014 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court. The said order passed by the Court below granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs is final and conclusive.

4. Thereafter according to the plaintiffs the defendants disobeyed the order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. Therefore, they filed application for police protection under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and the said application was resisted by the defendants. After hearing both the parties, the learned Civil Judge by impugned order dated 29.4.2015 has allowed the application and directed the jurisdictional police Haveri, to provide necessary protection to the plaintiffs, particularly, to use cart way/road/track by the plaintiffs. Hence defendant Nos.1, 18 to 21 have filed the present writ petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

6. Sri..Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court granting police protection is contrary to the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2 A of Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the dictum of this Court in the case of MANCHE GOWDA & ANOTHER Vs. V.M. MADAIAH reported in 1987 (1) in 119 and in the case of Narasimhappa v/s. Hanumanthappa reported in ILR 1976(2) KLJSN.40 held that the effect that if the defendants violate the order of temporary injunction, there is appropriate provision in the Code for taking action against the persons violating the order of the Court. Hence, the Court is not right in directing the police to implement the order of temporary injunction, the police are not the authorities to enforce the order of the Court. Therefore, he sought for set aside the impugned order.

7. Per contra, Sri Hanumantha Reddy Sahukar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to justify the impugned order and specifically contended it is not in dispute that the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court has been confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. If the defendants violate the order of temporary injunction the remedy is not under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC and Court can pass the orders to provide police protection to enforce the order. He relied upon the dictums of this Court in the case of MAHADEVAPRASAD M.S. AND OTHERS Vs. MAHADEVAIAH AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2001 KAR 462 and in the case of Papanna V/s. Nagachavi reported in 1996(2) K