On dismissal of complaint seeking police protection revision filed.

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.461 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli. The suit was decreed on 01.10.2002 granting the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioners/plaintiffs made arrangements to construct a compound wall in the suit property, but the same was effectively prevented by the men of the respondent/defendant. Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a complaint before the police, but the police did not come to their rescue. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application E.A.No.886 of 2002 before the learned District Munsif, Tirunelveli to give a direction to the Police to give protection at the time of construction of the compound wall. The learned Principal District Munsif dismissed the same on the ground that such police protection can be granted only in case of execution of decree of mandatory injunction or specific relief. Aggrieved over the said order, the plaintiffs have filed this revision.

2. In spite of notice, the respondent did not turn up.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner wound contend that the suit O.S.No.461 of 2002 was decreed on 01.10.2002 against the respondent restraining him from interfering with the possesosion and enjoyment of the suit property by the petitioner/plaintiff, but when the petitioners/plaintiffs went to construct a compound wall, the respondent/defendant prevented them effectively. Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs approached the local police, who were reluctant to interfere with the dispute. Thereafter, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.886 of 2002 praying the court to give a direction to police to give protection. Of course, in that application, the petitioners/plaintiffs have not mentioned the number of days for which police protection is sought for. In the grounds of revision, they have stated that police protection for ten days is sufficient to complete the construction of the compound wall.

4. In SRI-LA-SRI SIVASUBRAMNANYANANDA SWAMI VS. SRI-LA-SRI ARUNACHALASAMY AND ANOTHER (1992 TNLJ 120 (DB)), a Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-

"In 1969 (II) MLJ 1 Kailasam, J. as he then was, after referring to the above view of Lord Denning, M.R. in 1968 I All ER 763, observed (omitted)_

When the police authorities owe a legal duty to enforce law and when the public are entitled to seek directions under Art.226 of the Constitution for discharge of such duties by the Police Authorities, as pointed out by the learned Judge himself, we see no reason to hold that the civil courts cannot in an appropriate case issue directions under Sec.151 of the Code for the proper implementation of the order of injunction granted by the Court. In view of the above position, we are unable to share the view of Srinivasan, J., that a direction to the police authorities cannot be issued under Sec.151 of the Code to enforce the order of temporary injunction because the police authorities are not parties to the proceedings where an order of temporary injunction was passed. Secondly, the learned Judge has taken the view that the party who has obtained an order of injunction from a Civil Court can himself approach the police authorities directly for necessary safeguards for the purpose of enforcing the orders of injunction obtained by him. When a party himself can approach the police authorities directly for necessary safeguards for the purpose of enforcing the orders of injunction obtained by him, we do not see any reason why the court should not exercise its inherent powers under Sec.151 of the Code and direct the police authorities to implement the order of injunction passed by it, when such party who has obtained the order of injunction seeks the aid of the court for issue of necessary direction to the police authorities for the proper implementation of the order of injunction. This view of ours derive supp