The court affirmed the use of inherent power under Section 151 for immediate relief when other provisions did not provide adequate remedy, and emphasized the duty of the court to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, challenging an order whereby the trial court refused the petitioners' application for police help to implement an order of status-quo, captioned to be under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was refused by the trial court.

2. The trial Judge proceeded on the premise that such an application, since filed under Section 151 of the Code, was not in proper form. The parties, it was held, might invoke the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for getting justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the court had ample power to grant police help for the purpose of implementing its own order by invoking its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code.

4. In support of such proposition, learned counsel for the petitioners cites a judgment Saudamini Roychowdhury vs. Satyendra Nath Sarkar, 085 Cal. WN 958, wherein a co-ordinate bench of this court held that the order passed in the said matter by the trial court, refusing a similar application on the ground that the said court had no jurisdiction to make such an order, could not be allowed to stand and directed the trial court to pass appropriate directions upon the police as prayed for in the application under Section 151 of the Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter cites another judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this court, Sri Paresh Chandra Das vs. Sri Bikash Kumar Das and Others, (2010) 2 Cal. LJ 110, holding that since admittedly the interim order of injunction was still in operation, the trial Judge ought to have allowed the plaintiff's prayer for grant of police help for implementation of order of injunction. In the said case also, the application for police help had been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Learned counsel next cites a division bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Rayapati Audemma vs. Pothineni Narasimham, (1971) AIR AP 53. In the said case, the division bench was of the opinion that in order to do justice between the parties or to prevent the abuse of process of the court, civil courts have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties with regard to implementation of the orders of the court or the exercise of the rights created under orders of court. The police authorities, it was held, owe a legal duty to the public to enforce the law. It was further held that the civil courts can give appropriate directions under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders of court and it could not be said that for such a case the exercise of the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code was devoid of jurisdiction. The division bench held that there was no express provision in the Code prohibiting the exercise of such a power.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, places reliance on a judgment National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences vs. C. Parameshwara, (2005) AIR SC 242 in support of the proposition that the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 cannot be exercised so as to nullify provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the Code deals expressly with a particular matter, the provision should ordinarily be regarded as exhaustive.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties cites a judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this court, also relied on by the trial court, Joydev Das vs. Khandubala Das, (2012) 1 CHN 300. In the said judgment the learned Single Judge held that relief under Section 151 of the Code is to be granted only if:

(i) facts are not in dispute.

(ii) the court is satisfied that a party bound by an order of injunction has violated and/or disobeyed the same.

(iii) thereby causin