JUDGMENT - OKA A.S., J.:---By an order dated 16-9-2003 this Court has issued notice for final disposal of this writ petition. An affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioners which records that the respondents have been served with notice of this petition.

2. By this petition, an exception is taken to the order dated 18-8-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan below application Exh. 43. By the said application, petitioners prayed for direction that police aid should be made available for implementation of the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court in the said suit. The learned trial Judge rejected the said application on two grounds. The learned trial Judge held that application at Exh. 28 containing similar prayer has been rejected. The learned Judge also was of the opinion that there was no provision for allowing police aid for execution of interim order.

3. I have heard both the learned Counsel at length. Mr. Angal for the petitioners submitted that petitioners had made application at Exh. 28 praying for direction to grant police aid for implementation of the order of temporary injunction. While rejecting the said application by order dated 4-5-2002, the learned Judge observed that it was for the petitioners to independently move the police and take necessary aid. The learned Counsel pointed out that though the learned Judge observed that there was no provision in C.P.C. to grant such police aid, he also observed that the police aid can be granted in exceptional cases. In view of the observations made in the said order, the petitioner applied to the respondent No. 4 vide his application dated 4-4-2003 for grant of police aid. In the subsequent application at Exh. 43, the petitioners pointed out that no action was taken by the police against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 though it was brought to the notice of the Police Authorities that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have committed breach of order of injunction. In the said application at Exh. 43, the petitioner recorded their apprehension that without police aid, petitioners will not be in position to protect their possession while carrying out repairs to the suit chawl. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1995 Bombay 61 (Smt. Ratanabi w/o Narayanrao Naik and another v. Shri Satwarao s/o Narayanrao Naik)1. The learned Counsel pointed out that this Court has taken a view that Civil Court has power to grant police help for implementation or execution of decree or the order passed by the Court.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has opposed this petition. The learned Counsel contended that no case has been made out by the petitioner for grant of police aid.

5. Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as said Code) provides that the provisions of the said Code relating to execution of decree are also applicable to execution of orders in so far as they are applicable. Under the provisions of Rule 32 of Order XXI. Mode is prescribed for execution of decree for injunction. In so far as decree for injunction is concerned, the same can be executed by attachment of property of the person disobeying the decree for injunction or by detention of such person of by both. Rule 2-A of Order XXXIX of the said Code empowers the Court to penalise the person who has disobeyed the order of temporary injunction. Rule 11 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure permits the Court to strike out defence of defendant who commits breach of an order of the Court. The object of all the said provisions is to ensure that the orders passed by the Court of law are implemented and obeyed by all concerned. Section 151 of the said Code saves inherent power to Civil Court to make such orders as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice. Some High Courts have taken a view that under section 151 of the said Code, Court has power to direct the Police Authorities to give necessary ai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document