Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant police protection.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, dated 20-12-2002, directing the Inspector of Police, Vangal to provide police protection to the petitioner therein/respondent herein, the petitioners/respondents therein preferred the above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Mr. S. Thangavel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Sethuratnam, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner/respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S. No.142/2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur, praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein in any manner interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. She also filed an application in I.A.No.221/2002 praying for a temporary injunction for the same effect. Originally an ex parte interim injunction was granted and subsequently the said application was allowed and the injunction was made absolute on 29-11-2002. Thereafter, the petitioner/respondent herein filed I.A.No. 1045/2002 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure praying for providing police protection to her to irrigate her lands, harvest the tapioca plants, pluck the coconuts and carry out all types of farming operations. On 19-12-2002 notice was served on the respondents therein/petitioners herein. On the next day i.e., on 20-12-2002, the learned Judge allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/respondents have filed the above Revision.

4. Mr. A. Thangavel, learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents, would contend that even though the counsel for the respondents therein after taking notice prayed for time for filing counter on 19-12-2002 in I.A.No.1045/2002, the learned Subordinate judge without affording opportunity them to file counter, passed a non-speaking order, granting direction for police protection on 20-12-2002. He also contended that police aid cannot be granted with an order of injunction, for which he relied on a decision of this Court in THE COIMBATORE PIONEER MILLS LTD., v. CHANDRA TEXTILES LTD., reported in 1996-1-L.W. 52. On the other hand, Mr. S. Sethuratnam, learned senior counsel for the respondent herein/petitioner, would contend that in the light of the earlier order, granting injunction, that too after hearing both parties, in view of the attempt of the petitioners herein to interfere with the peaceful possession of the respondent herein, the Court below was justified in granting police aid. He also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in SRI-LA-SRI SIVASUBRAMANYANANDA SWAMI v. SRI-LA-SRI ARUNACHALASAMY AND ANOTHER, reported in 1992 T.L.N.J. 120. There is no dispute that in I.A.No.221/2002, the learned Subordinate Judge after hearing both sides and considering the materials placed before him, allowed the said application and granted injunction till the disposal of the suit. It is the grievance of the respondent herein that in spite of the said order, the petitioners herein-defendants are making attempts to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is also stated that the tapioca plants are ripe for harvest and she apprehends that the defendants may interfere with the harvesting of the tapioca plants and plucking the coconuts standing in the suit property. In those circumstances, she filed I.A.No.1045/2002 seeking for a direction to the Inspector of Police, Vangal for providing protection to her to irrigate the suit lands, harvest the tapioca plants, plucking the coconuts and carrying out all types of farming operations.

5. It is not disputed that on behalf of the petitioners herein/respondents therein, their counsel took notice even on 19-12-2002 and no doubt, he made an endorsement on the petition itself, praying time for filing counter. The learned Subordinate Judge on 20-12-2002, after holding that notice was served on the other side and after hearing both parties, ordered the said