The Court clarified the principles for ordering police protection and emphasized the complementary nature of the inherent power under Section 151, CPC.

1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners as well as the Respondent

2. Challenging the order, dated 10.03.2011 made in Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.31 of 2011 in A.s. No.49 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, this Civil Revision has been referred by the Appellant in the Appeal.

3. It is not in dispute that the Suit in O.s. No.8 of 2003 was filed by the Respondent herein against the Revision Petitioners and four others by Order, dated 08.07.2009, the Suit was decreed by a common judgment. Aggrieved by which, the Petitioners herein preferred an Appeal in A. S. No.49 of 2009 and the same is pending before the Court below.

4. In the Appeal, the Respondent herein filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. NO.31 of 2011 under Section 151, CPC to direct the Deputy superintendent of Police, Bargur to give police protection to the Temple Commerce to perform the Pooja during the yugadhi Festival which falls on 4.4.2011 and 5.4.2011. By the impugned order dated 10.3.2011, that Interlocutory Application is allowed with costs by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision has been preferred.

5. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the suit temple is a private temple, though the Trial Court has granted a declaration that the Respondent/Plaintiff committee is entitled to manage and administer the affairs of the temple and consequential injunction, the same has been challenged before the Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.

6. It is an admitted fact that both the Petitioners and the Respondent and others are entitled to right of worship in the temple. The learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners contended that pursuant to the injunction granted by the District Munsif, Krishnagiri, the Respondent could have filed Petition under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC, however, the Respondent filed a Petition under Section 151 of CPC, which is not legally sustainable. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions.

1. Abdul Sukhure Bhai v. durai Kuppuswamy, 2006 (2) CTC 211; and

2. Kannatti v. Anai Gounder, 2005 (1) CTC 540: AIR 2005 Mad. 461.

7. In Abdul Sukhure Bhai v. Durai Kuppuswamy, 2006 (2) CTC 211, this Court (R. Banumathi. J.) has held as follows:

“10. Ordering Police protection has got serious consequences, impinging on the rights of the parties. Generally, at the stage of granting interim injunction, police protection is not be ordered simultaneously while granting interim injunction. The reason being, the application is before the Court in the initial stages. The court is granting interim injunction only on the satisfaction on the prima facie case and the balance of convenience. Since the entire materials, Court is not apprised of the realities. When the Court is not apprised of the full situation, it would not be proper to pass an order granting Police aid. If such orders are being passed, there is every possibility that the party to whom the interim injunction was granted, armed with the order of Police protection, might try to take advantage of the order and there is every possibility of dispossessing the person who is in actual possession.”

8. In M/s. The Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Ltd., Coimbatore-4 v. M/s/ Chandra Textiles Ltd., Coimbatore-4, 1996 (1) LW 52, this Court (Srinivasan J.) has held as follows:

“The necessity of Police aid is to be decided by the party and is not to be decided by the Court. In such circumstances, the District Munsif, ought not to have passed such an order. Further, police aid cannot be granted simultaneously with an order of injunction. Only if the Court is satisfied that the order of injunction passed by it is not obeyed by the other party, and the party who has secured the order is not in a position to enjoy the benefits of the order because of the conduct of the other party and Police interference is absolutely necessary, the Court can grant an order