Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Dipankar Datta, J.
Sandeep Kr. Jhunjhunwala - Appellant
Versus
Pasupati Tour "N" Links - Respondent
C.O. 2427 of 2010
Decided On : May 20,2011
SECTION 151 CPC - POLICE INACTION - CONTEMPT OF COURT - [Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, Section 23 Police Act, 1861, Section 10 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971] - High Court held that a civil court has the power to direct the police to enforce its orders and that failure to do so may amount to contempt of court.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction, and damages. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed two applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the CPC seeking to restrain the defendants from bringing vehicles into the suit premises. The court passed an order of injunction on contest restraining the defendants from doing so. The plaintiff then filed an application under Section 151 seeking an order of police help to implement the injunction order. The trial court allowed the application and directed the Officer-in-Charge of the police station to render sufficient police protection. The plaintiff later filed another application under Section 151 alleging that the police authorities had not extended any help and that the defendants were flouting the court's order with impunity. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff had not filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC and that the police officers were not parties to the suit. The plaintiff challenged the order in a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application under Section 151 of the CPC. The court held that the plaintiff was not required to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC as the order dated 23rd September 2008 was passed under Section 151 of the CPC and not under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The court further held that the police officers were bound to obey the court's order under Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861, and that failure to do so could amount to contempt of court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court set aside the trial court's order and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application under Section 151 of the CPC. 2. Whether the police officers were bound to obey the court's order under Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861. 3. Whether failure to obey the court's order could amount to contempt of court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application under Section 151 of the CPC as the plaintiff was not required to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC. 2. The court held that the police officers were bound to obey the court's order under Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861, as a court of law cannot be rendered inactive because the police are not co-operative. 3. The court held that failure to obey the court's order could amount to contempt of court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as each and every High Court has the power to punish for contempt of subordinate Courts functioning within such High Court's territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the trial court's order and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.
1. THE petitioner is the plaintiff (hereafter the plaintiff) in Title Suit No. 2772 of 2007, pending on the file of the learned Judge, Bench VII, City Civil Court at Calcutta, wherein the opposite parties are the defendants (hereafter the defendants). It is a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction as well as for damages. After the suit was filed, the plaintiff filed two applications, one under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereafter the Code) read with Section 151 thereof, inter alia, seeking to restrain the defendants and their men and agents from bringing any vehicle within the compound of the suit premises or from parking any vehicle therein. The petitioner had also filed an application under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code read with Section 151 thereof praying for appointment of a Receiver.
2. BY order no.15 dated 24th June, 2008, the learned Judge passed, on contest, an order of injunction on contest. The defendants were restrained from bringing any vehicle within the suit premises or from parking any vehicle therein till the disposal of the suit. However, the application for appointment of Receiver stood rejected.
It is not in dispute that none of the parties to the suit questioned the propriety and/or legality of the order dated 24th June, 2008 and hence the same attained finality. Alleging that the order dated 24th June, 2008 was being persistently violated by the defendants, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 before the trial Court seeking an order of police help. On a contested hearing, the learned Judge by order dated 23rd September, 2008 allowed the application. The Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station, Kolkata, was directed to render sufficient police protection to implement the order of injunction dated 24th June, 2008.
3. A further application under Section 151 of the Code was preferred by the plaintiff on 6th May, 2010 alleging, inter alia, that no help had been extended by the police authorities and as a result of police inaction, the defendants were flouting the Court's order with impunity.
4. ACCORDINGLY, it was prayed that an order be passed directing the Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central), Kolkata Police to personally appear before the Court and explain why appropriate action should not be taken against them for not rendering police help to the plaintiff in spite of specific direction.
The application was opposed by the defendants by filing written objection. Dismissal of the application was prayed for on the ground that the police officers are not parties to the suit and hence no order could be passed against them.
5. THE defendants despite service of summons and entering appearance in the suit had not filed their respective written statements within the time allowed by Order 8 Rule 6 of the Code. Accordingly, both the defendants filed separate applications before the learned Judge praying for acceptance of their written statements upon condonation of delay.
6. BY a composite order dated 9th July, 2010, the learned Judge rejected the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code and allowed the prayer of the defendants to accept their written statements filed beyond time upon imposition of costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the plaintiff as condition precedent.
This composite order dated 9th July, 2010, is under challenge in this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution.
7. THE application under Section 151 of the Code filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the learned Judge on the ground that attention of the learned Judge could not be drawn by the plaintiff's learned advocate to any provision of law that empowers him to direct the Officer-in- Charge, Hare Street Police Station and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) to appear personally in the Court for alleged inaction on their part to obey the order of
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
