Inherent powers for grant of police and to be exercised sparingly.

The Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners herein, who have filed the suit for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the petitioners have filed I.A. No.572 of 2002 for interim injunction, which was granted exparte by the trial court on 10-10-2002, till 01-11-2002. On 20-10-2002, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 682 of 2002 for police aid, which was dismissed by the trial court by its common order dated 22-08-2003 along with I.A. No. 572 of 2002 for interim injunction, however, this revision is filed only against the order of dismissal of the application for police aid.

2. Both sides have not let in either oral or documentary evidence before the trial court. On 10-10-2002, the trial court granted exparte interim injunction in I.A. No. 572 of 2002 till 01-11-2002. On 01-11-2002, the respondents entered appearance through their counsel and filed counter in the said I.A. No. 572 of 2002 in I.A. No. 682 of 2002. It was stated that on 11-10-2002, the respondents and their men prevented the petitioners from drawing water through Raja Vaikkal and on 14-10-2002 the respondents threatened the petitioners with dire consequence, with the result, an oral complaint was given by the petitioners on 14-10-2002 with the Omalur police station. The trial court found that in respect of the said allegations, the petitioners have not placed any iota of evidence; whereas, the respondents herein have denied all the averments made by the petitioners; the trial court further found that though the petitioners have stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 682 of 2002 that in O.S. No. 192 of 1998 an application in I.A. No. 628 of 1998 was filed for interim mandatory injunction and the said application was allowed on 20-04-2000 with a direction to the respondents herein to restore Raja Vaikkal, but the said order was also not placed before it. It is also mentioned in the order of the trial court that an advocate commissioner has inspected Raja Vaikkal on 23-02-2003 and till that date the said Vaikkal was in disrepair condition, while so, the averment that the respondents herein have damaged the Raja Vaikkal are unbeleivable, besides it is impossible to use the said Vaikkal by the petitioners and draw water.

3. In this case, exparte interim injunction was granted by the trial court under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC on 10-10-2002, till 01-11-2002. On 01-11-2002, the respondents herein entered appearance through their counsel and filed their counter.

4. Admittedly, there is no express provision in the code for the purpose of implementation. It cannot be said that the exercise of inherent power under Section 151 of CPC is devoid of jurisdiction. There is no express provision in the code prohibiting the exercise of such a power of the Court and the Court can give appropriate direction at the instance of the aggrieved parties to the police authorities to render its aid for enforcement of the order in a lawful manner. Followed (Rayapati Audemma v. Pothineni Narasimham) AIR 1971 Andhra Pradesh 53 wherein in para-9 it was held thus:-

"9. If the police authorities are under a legal duty to enforce the law and the public or the citizens are entitled to seek directions under Article 226 of the Constitution for discharge of such duties by the police authorities we feel that the civil courts can also give appropriate directions under Section 151 Civil P.C. to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the order of Court. It cannot be said that in such a case the exercise of the inherent power under Section 151 Civil P.C. is devoid of jurisdiction. There is no express provision in the code prohibiting the exercise of such a power of the Court and the Court can give appropriate directions at the instance of the aggrieved parties to the police authorities to render its aid for enforcement of the Court's order in a lawful manner.

5. The apex Court in the decision reported in (Padam Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh) A