Proper exercise of discretion and recording reasons for ordering police protection, and the principle that police aid should not be granted simultaneously with an order of injunction.

This revision is directed against the order dated 9.12.1999, made in I.A.No.415/1999 in O.S. No.372/1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam, ordering police protection.

2. The suit property relates to the vacant plot measuring 259 Sq.ft. in S.No.319/part new S.No.26, Palani, Gandhi Road, Arakkonam.

3. Case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property is a joint family property of Veeraragavalu and his brothers. The Plaintiff has purchased suit property from the said Veeraragavalu for valid consideration by the Sale Deed dated 23.9.1999. Since the date of purchase, the Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also the share of other brothers, which formed part and parcel of the suit property. The Defendants have no right or title over the suit property; but are attempting to interfere with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment and hence the suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants and his men from in any way interfering with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. I.A.No.414/1999 :-

Along with the suit, the Plaintiff has filed this application for temporary injunction. On the date of filing of the suit, exparte order of interim injunction was granted to the Plaintiff. Along with that application, I.A.No.415/1999 was also filed to grant police protection and directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police Arakkonam to implement the injunction order. On the date of filing the suit and the application for temporary injunction, petition for police protection was ordered directing police aid. Aggrieved over the grant of police protection, this Revision is preferred.

5. Assailing the impugned order and placing reliance upon 1992 TLNJ 120, the learned counsel has submitted that though the Courts have power to grant police protection in appropriate cases, such order of police protection is not to be ordered simultaneously along with the order of passing interim injunction. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the Judgment of Srinivasan, J. reported in 1996 (1) LW 52. Submitting that the ordering of such police protection simultaneously along with granting of interim injunction will cause serious prejudice, the learned counsel has assailed the impugned order. Drawing the attention of the Court to the averments in the counter statement, the learned counsel has submitted that taking advantage of the interim injunction, and the order of police protection, the Respondent/Plaintiff is only attempting to dispossess the Revision Petitioner/ Defendant and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. Further the learned counsel has also pointed the previous litigation in O.S.No.179/1985 pending between he Petitioner's vendor Veeragavalu and the Respondent in which injunction was granted in favour of the Respondent.

6.Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the Respondent Plaintiff has submitted that the lower Court is satisfied as to the prima facie case of the Plaintiff and granted interim injunction and also ordered police protection. It is submitted that when the lower Court has satisfied itself about the prima facie case of the Respondent and has rightly exercised its discretion, there is no reason calling for interference in the impugned order granting police protection.

7. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, impugned order and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this revision:-

(i) Whether the learned District Munsif was right in ordering police protection, simultaneously along with the interim injunction made in I.A.No.414/1999 ?;

(ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the impugned order, ordering police aid, suffers from material irregularity warranting interference.

9. In a referred matter, the Division Bench of this Court considered the question, Whether the civil Courts can issue directions to the police officials in order to