Order of temporary injunction passed by Civil Court not complied.

The Hon’ble Chief Justice:

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 21.03.2005. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

2. It appears that a temporary injunction dated 09.08.2004 was granted by the learned District Munsif, Perambalur in Interlocutory Application No.282 of 2003 in O.S.No.73 of 2003. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed in this Court to give adequate police protection to the writ petitioner for effective implementation of the aforesaid interim injunction. That writ petition has been allowed by the impugned order of the learned single Judge, and hence the present writ appeal.

3. We are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. When a temporary injunction order is passed in a suit by a civil Court under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is not complied with, the remedy of the plaintiff is either to apply under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. or under Section 151 of the C.P.C., and certainly not to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court is not an executing Court, vide Ghan Shyam Das Gupta Vs. Anant Kumar Sinha, AIR 1991 SC 2251 and Nallathambi Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, 2005 –1- L.W. 422. There are adequate provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure itself which enable the civil Court to enforce and implement its orders. For instance, Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. states:-

“R.2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction – (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.

(2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.”

4. Thus, if a temporary injunction order is not obeyed, the Court granting the injunction may order the property of the defendant to be attached and also direct such person to be detained in the civil prison upto three months.

5. Apart from Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C., in our opinion, under Section 151 of the C.P.C. the Civil Court can also pass appropriate orders to secure compliance of the temporary injunction including grant of police protection. Section 151 of the C.P.C. is very widely framed. It has to be interpreted to mean that it gives power to the Court to pass any order to secure the ends of justice, unless expressly or impliedly prohibited by some provision of the statute, and not that the Court has no power to pass any order under Section 151 unless expressly permitted by some provision of the C.P.C. Thus, in Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. S.Suppiah, AIR 1975 Mad 270 (vide paragraphs 7 and 9) a Full Bench of the Madras High Court held that Order 39 of the C.P.C. does not place any limit on the scope of the inherent power under Section 151 of the C.P.C.

6. In Rayapati Audemma Vs. Pothineni Narasimhan, AIR 1971 AP 53 a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that as there was no express provision in the C.P.C. for the implementation of a temporary injunction order the Court can grant police aid under its inherent power under Section 151. However, we wish to add that we do not agree with the A.P. High Court that Article 226 of the Constitution should be invoked for obtaining police pro