The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's duty to prevent flouting of injunction orders and its inherent powers under S.151 CPC to ensure justice and prevent abuse of court process.

1. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S. 157/81. He is the present President of Udumbra Pazhaya Jumayath Palliparipalana Committee. Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing in the plaint schedule property and using the same as a burial ground. Defendants contended inter-alia that the plaint schedule property is the ancient burial ground of the mahal and the plaintiffs cannot restrain the defendants and the members of the mahal from using the same as burial ground. They also contended that the plaint schedule property is not identifiable.

2. Plaintiffs filed I.A. 2252/85 for police protection against (be defendants to enforce the order made by the court in I.A. 1275/81. I.A. 1275/81 was filed by the plaintiff for an interim injunction restraining the defendants or their men from entering upon the plaint A schedule property or committing any loss or damage to the same. Injunction was granted by the court below. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that despite the order in their favour defendants continued to trespass upon the property and attempted to use it as a grave-yard unauthorisedly. Plaintiffs contended that the respondents have no manner of right to enter into the plaint schedule property or use it for burying dead bodies. According to the plaintiffs, though they approached the police authorities to enforce the injunction order they did not show even any lukewarm response. The court below allowed the petition holding that as the injunction order is in force it is the duty of the court to see that it is enforced.

3. Admittedly, the injunction order granted by the court below is in force. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the court below went wrong in passing the impugned order. It is also contended that the plaint schedule property is not identifiable and on that ground also the order of the court below is not sustainable. Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the contention that the suit property is not identifiable is without any merit and in view of the commission report specifying the boundaries of the property it is indeed futile to contend that the suit property is not identifiable. Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the court below was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order as it is the bounden duty of the court to see that its order is enforced and not flouted wantonly. In view of the commission report contention of the defendants that the property is not identifiable is not tenable.

4. The important point to be considered is as to whether the court is entitled to enforce the order in I. A. 1275/81 by affording police protection, Though action can be taken by the court for violation of injunction under O.39 R.2A C.P.C. that does not end there as it is open to the court to implement its order by exercising its inherent powers under S.151 CPC. In this context it is useful to refer to the decision in Hari Nandan v. S. N. Pandita (AIR. 1975 All. 48) wherein it has been held as follows:

"Where the plaintiff has been dispossessed by the defendants by wilfully disobeying the interim injunction order restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff the Court which issued the order can in exercise of its inherent power after considering the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties pass such order in the ends of justice as would undo the wrong done to the plaintiff in whose favour the injunction order bad been issued."

As injunction order granted by the trial court is in force it cannot be allowed to be meddled with and to prevent any flagrant acts of violation of the order the court can issue suitable orders by exercising its inherent powers under S.151 CPC. In the decision in R. Audemma v. P. Narasimham (AIR. 1971 A. P. 53) it is held that in order to do justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court, the civil courts have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police authorities