1. Decree-holder's legal representatives sought execution of a permanent injunction decree with police protection. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 593
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Sri N Kempaiah, S/O. Late Sri. Nanjegowda - Petitioner
Versus
Sri A.V.Srinivas, S/O. Late Sri. A.V. Venkataramana Shetty - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7995 of 2026 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 16-07-2026
Important Points
An application for police protection under Section 151 CPC is maintainable during execution proceedings of a permanent injunction decree, as inherent powers supplement procedural gaps. It cannot be dismissed as non-maintainable solely because Order XXI Rule 32 provides a different mode of execution.
Subject
Civil Law - Execution of Decrees
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 and Order XXI Rule 32 - Execution of decree for permanent injunction - Application for police protection - Maintainability - Inherent powers of the Court can be invoked to provide police assistance to implement a decree when the Code is silent on the specific mode of granting such assistance - Such an application cannot be dismissed as non-maintainable solely because a substantive provision like Order XXI Rule 32 exists for the execution of an injunction decree (Paras 11, 12 and 14).
(B) Inherent Powers of Court - These powers do not create substantive rights but supplement the procedure to render effective justice and prevent abuse of process - Where execution proceedings are pending, an ancillary application for police protection under Section 151 CPC is maintainable and should be decided on merits after an inquiry into the facts of obstruction or willful disobedience (Paras 11 and 14).
Facts of the case:
The legal representatives of a decree holder in a suit for permanent injunction filed an execution petition. Within those proceedings, an application was filed under Section 151 of the CPC seeking police protection to construct a compound wall and protect possession of the decretal property. The trial court dismissed the application, reasoning that because a specific procedure exists under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC for enforcing a decree of permanent injunction (via arrest or attachment), the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 could not be invoked to provide police aid.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while Order XXI Rule 32 describes the mode of execution, it does not specifically authorize the provision of police protection. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC is meant to supplement the procedure where the Code is silent, thereby enabling the court to ensure the effective implementation of the judgment and decree.
Issues: Whether the executing court was justified in dismissing an application under Section 151 of the CPC as not maintainable on the ground that the decree holder should have invoked Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: Quoting a different provision is not fatal if jurisdiction exists. An application for police protection under Section 151 CPC is an ancillary procedural relief rather than an independent execution petition; therefore, it cannot be dismissed on technical grounds of maintainability. The court must decide such applications on merits by examining the existence of a valid executable decree and conducting an inquiry into allegations of obstruction or willful disobedience.
Result: Writ petition allowed; order set aside and matter remanded to the trial court for inquiry.
(B) Inherent Powers of Court - These powers do not create substantive rights but supplement the procedure to render effective justice and prevent abuse of process - Where execution proceedings are pending, an ancillary application for police protection under Section 151 CPC is maintainable and should be decided on merits after an inquiry into the facts of obstruction or willful disobedience (Paras 11 and 14).
Facts of the case:
The legal representatives of a decree holder in a suit for permanent injunction filed an execution petition. Within those proceedings, an application was filed under Section 151 of the CPC seeking police protection to construct a compound wall and protect possession of the decretal property. The trial court dismissed the application, reasoning that because a specific procedure exists under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC for enforcing a decree of permanent injunction (via arrest or attachment), the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 could not be invoked to provide police aid.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while Order XXI Rule 32 describes the mode of execution, it does not specifically authorize the provision of police protection. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC is meant to supplement the procedure where the Code is silent, thereby enabling the court to ensure the effective implementation of the judgment and decree.
Issues: Whether the executing court was justified in dismissing an application under Section 151 of the CPC as not maintainable on the ground that the decree holder should have invoked Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: Quoting a different provision is not fatal if jurisdiction exists. An application for police protection under Section 151 CPC is an ancillary procedural relief rather than an independent execution petition; therefore, it cannot be dismissed on technical grounds of maintainability. The court must decide such applications on merits by examining the existence of a valid executable decree and conducting an inquiry into allegations of obstruction or willful disobedience.
Result: Writ petition allowed; order set aside and matter remanded to the trial court for inquiry.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. R.B.Sadasivappa, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri.Vinayaka S Pandit, Advocate
For the Petitioner:Sri. R.B.Sadasivappa, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri.Vinayaka S Pandit, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Decree-holders argued the court must enforce the decree; judgment-debtors argued the application for police aid was outside execution scope. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 10 )
3. An application under Section 151 CPC in a pending execution petition is maintainable and cannot be dismissed solely for that reason. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. A court has inherent power to grant police protection to enforce a decree, even if no specific CPC provision exists. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded for inquiry into necessity of police aid. (Para 15 )
6. Is an application for police protection under Section 151 CPC maintainable during execution of an injunction decree under Order XXI Rule 32?
Yes. An application under Section 151 CPC for police protection is maintainable as an ancillary proceeding in a pending execution petition, even though Order XXI Rule 32 governs the substantive execution. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. Should an executing court dismiss a police protection application merely because it cites Section 151 instead of Order XXI Rule 32?
No. Dismissal solely on the ground of citing a wrong provision is improper if jurisdiction exists, as quoting the wrong provision is not fatal. (Para 12 )
8. What is the proper procedure an executing court must follow when hearing a police protection application under Section 151 CPC?
The court must conduct an inquiry, examine the decree, allegations of obstruction, and objections, potentially adducing evidence, before deciding whether police assistance is necessary. (Para 14 )
9. Is an application for police protection under Section 151 CPC separate from the substantive execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32?
No. It is an interlocutory application in the pending execution proceedings, not an independent petition, seeking ancillary relief to implement the decree. (Para 11 , 13 )
ORDER :
Lalitha Kanneganti, J.
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.1 in Ex.No.43/2025 dated 03.02.2026 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara, the petitioners who are the legal representatives of the Decree Holder are before this Court.
2. The facts of the case are that one Sri.N.Kempaiah filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.124/2018 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara against the respondents and the same was decreed on 03.08.2020. Against the said judgment and decree, the respondents filed R.A.No.22/2020 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara and the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 27.05.2021. Against the dismissal of R.A.No.22/2020, the respondents filed RSA.No.2058/2021 before this Court and thereafter, a memo was filed by the respondents for withdrawal of the RSA and the same was allowed. It is the case that Sri.N.Kempaiah expired on 19.09.2024 after the disposal of the RSA and thereafter, the legal heirs had filed the execution petition and also filed an I.A. under Section 151 of CPC seeking police protection to put up the compound wall/fencing to protect their possession of the decretal property, and the said application came to be dismissed.
3. The respondents/Judgment Debtors filed their objections and stated that the instant petition filed by the Decree Holders is not maintainable either in law or on facts and deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is further contended that Sri.N.Kempaiah who is the husband of the Decree Holder No.1(a) and father of Decree Holder No.1(b) and (c) had filed O.S.No.124/2018 against the original defendants namely one Sri.A.V.Srinivas and after his death, his legal heirs were brought on record. The Judgment Debtor Nos.4 to 8 are arrayed as parties to the present proceedings and are not parties to the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.124/2018. It is their case that the relief sought in the present proceedings is barred by jurisdiction and beyond the scope of execution proceedings.
4. The trial Court by the order impugned had dismissed I.A.No.1 and, while dismissing the application, observed that the Decree Holders have not placed substantial materials before this Court as observed by the High Court, to extend the police aid to the Decree Holders in violation of the permanent injunction granted by judgment and decree in O.S.No.124/2018 dated 03.08.2020. The Court observed that, to enforce the judgment and decree of permanent injunction, when there is a specific procedure of law, the Decree Holders cannot invoke Section 151 of CPC, which confers inherent powers on the Civil Court. When the execution petition is filed under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC to enforce a decree of permanent injunction by arrest and detention of the Judgment Debtor to civil prison or by attachment of property or both, pending consideration of the said petition, the executive Court cannot direct the police to ensure obedience to the decree in exercise of powers under Section 151 of CPC. The Court also observed that the Decree Holder shall place sufficient materials to show that the Judgment Debtors are willfully disobeying the order of permanent injunction. If the Decree Holders approach the police alleging that in spite of the decree of permanent injunction, the Judgment Debtors are interfering with the movable property and causing legal injury to the Decree Holders, the police can register the case for an offence of trespass or attempted trespass and investigate the matter. Therefore, the application filed by the Decree Holders under Section 151 CPC seeking police help is not maintainable. and accordingly, dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/Decree Holders are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial Court, without appreciating both factual and legal position, had dismissed the application. The executing Court had failed to note that the execution petition is filed to execute the dec
