The main legal point established in the judgment is the inherent power of civil courts to order police protection to ensure the implementation of court orders and prevent abuse of the court process, which should only be exercised when absolutely necessary and in the interest of justice.

This C.R.P. is filed challenging the order dated 5-8-1998 in I.A. 1858/1998 in O.S. 266/1997 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Attingal. The petitioners are the defendants in the case, while the respondents are the plaintiffs. After the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. 1202 of 1997 for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or digging soil from therein for the purpose of making out any channel through the plaint schedule property and doing any acts to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs or doing rafting of husk in the water logged area or from causing any damage to the rafted husk in the water logged portions. An interim injunction was granted. Thereafter after hearing the defendants the order was confirmed. It seems, the defendants had also filed suit as O.S.32/1997 and therein they had filed I.A. 164/1997 for temporary injunction. That was also heard along with I.A. 1202/1997. But, that application was dismissed. Against the above common order, the petitioners have preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before the Sub Court, Attingal and the appeals are pending.

2. The injunction order was passed on 6-7-1998. On 4-8-1998, the respondents filed a petition for police protection. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed along with the petition the respondents have stated that the petitioners obstructed the putting up of the boundary on the southern side of the plaint schedule property. Hence, they prayed for police protection against the defendants from obstructing the construction of boundary on the southern side. That is the application I.A. 1858/1998. This application was moved on 5-8-1998. The learned counsel for the petitioners wanted time to file objections; but without granting time, the Munsiff heard that petition on that day and passed orders on 5-8-1998 itself. The lower Court has directed the Circle Inspector of Police, Kazhakkuttom to render necessary police protection to the plaintiffs to put fencing around the plaint schedule property especially on the southern side of the property so as to see that the injunction order is implemented. It is against the above order, the revision petition is filed.

3. I heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri G. S. Raghunath contended that the order for police protection given by the Court below is without jurisdiction and without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections. He contended that there was no hurry to pass the order on 5-8-1998 itself. Further he contended that the police protection was given to put up boundaries. There was no complaint that the interim order of injunction was violated by the petitioners; nor any petition filed to take action against them, Learned counsel contended that even though a civil Court may have power to grant police protection, but that could not have been given in a case like this, where there has been no adjudication regarding the boundaries. He further submitted that after obtaining the order of injunction, the respondents have put up a bund and a boundary fencing. He contended that these acts will prejudice the hearing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Original Suit.

4A . Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents Sri. P. Sukumaran Nayar contended that the plaintiffs had obtained an order of injunction to enjoy the plaint schedule property. Putting up of boundaries is one of the mode of enjoyment. But when that was objected to by the petitioners, the respondents moved for police protection. There is inherent power in every Court to order police protection in order to see that the order passed by the Court is honoured. He further contended that even though a bund was put up by the respondents after getting police protection, that was removed after the interim order was passed in C.M.P. 3208/1998 on 21-8-1998. He contended that so far as the injunction is alive, the res