A court can provide police protection to enforce a temporary injunction in cases of documented violations, emphasizing the judicial duty to uphold such orders.

ORDER :

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.)

This petition is filed challenging order dated 11.11.2019 passed on IA.No.13 in O.S.13/2017 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channarayapatna.

2. Sri.H.N.Shashidhara, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners filed suit against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners' application for temporary injunction was considered and granted by detailed order on 28.10.2017. The said order was challenged in MFA.No.9460/2017. However, the said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and later restored and there is no stay of the order dated 28.10.2017.

3. It is submitted that despite the restraining order against the respondents, they have attempted to dispossess and caused continuous disturbance to the enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the petitioners. 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. However, the trial Court without considering the same has passed an order on 11.11.2019 and rejected the application solely on the ground that the incidents narrated by the petitioners are mere aberrations of interference.

4. It is submitted that the petitioners lodged the police complaints against the respondents for constant disturbance to their possession and number of incidents were pointed out in the application. However, none of such things were considered by the trial Court, which has resulted in rejection of the application. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions:

a) Smt.Karisiddamma and Others v. Smt.Sanna Kenchamma , ILR 2010 KAR 1197

b) Siddaramappa and Others v. Talavar Rangappa and Others , WP.No.62970/2016 dated 27.02.2017

c) Sri.Manjunath Reddy v. Smt.V.Nagarathna and Others , WP.No.37507/2012 dated 01.04.2014

It is contended that this Court has granted interim police protection in the present proceedings and thereafter, the respondents have not disturbed their possession over the suit schedule properties. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition by providing police protection to protect their possession over the suit schedule properties.

5. Per contra, Sri.Ramachandra R. Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and 10 & 11 and Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.8 and 9(a) to 9(d) supports the impugned order of the trial Court. It is submitted that the petitioners have misrepresented before the Court in the writ petition stating that MFA.No.9460/2017 is dismissed and obtained the interim relief in the present petition. However, the said appeal is still pending. It is submitted that immediately after the passing of the interim order by this Court, the respondents filed an application for vacating the same which is pending and the petitioners took many adjournments for one or the other pretext.

6. It is further submitted that respondent No.8 has filed OS.No.59/2017 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the same properties which is pending and the petitioners have filed written statement in the said suit and without disclosing all the facts petitioners have obtained the interim order at the hands of this Court. It is also submitted that the interim order of the trial Court dated 28.10.2017 has not attained finality and till the temporary injunction attains finality there cannot be any police protec