The inherent power of the court under Section 151 CPC is wide and not subject to any limitation, and it is the duty of the court to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order allowing the application filed under Section 151 CPC praying for police protection to break open the lock at KRM Estate office and hostel and also to recover the car belonging to the trust from the petitioner herein so as to enable the respondent herein to function as the Managing Trustee.

2. The short facts that are necessary for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

In respect of subject matter trust called Kottur Rangasamy Mudaliar Trust (KRM Trust), a scheme decree was passed by the Scheme Court, namely, the District Court, Tanjore on 06.12.1916. Thereafter the scheme decree was modified by a Division Bench of this Court and as per the modified scheme, the parties were given liberty to apply to the District Court, Tanjore in future for further directions. Accordingly the respondent herein filed I.A.No.46/2011 in O.S.Nos.1 and 3 of 1907 on the file of the District Court, Tanjore to recognize herself as Chairman Trustee of the Trust for a period of three years as per the earlier agreement entered into among the Trustees. He claimed the Chairman Trusteeship for the period commencing from 05.01.2011 to 05.01.2014. It is the case of the respondent that such appointment to the post of Chairman Trustee is being made once in three years by rotation among the existing trustees as per the agreement entered into between them. The said application was allowed by the District Court, Tanjore on 20.06.2011. The petitioner herein challenged the said order before this Court in C.R.P.No.2841 of 2011 by an order dated 23.02.2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition by holding that the petitioner herein having acted as Chairman Trustee from 05.01.2008 to 05.01.2011 in terms of the agreement, cannot turn around and say that the Court has got no power to appoint the Chairman Trustee. It is also specifically found by the learned Judge that there was no variation of decree. Aggrieved against the said order made in C.R.P.No.2841 of 2011 dated 23.02.2012, the petitioner herein filed an S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is stated that no stay has been granted by the Apex Court in the said matter. However the said S.L.P. is said to be pending as on date. When the said order passed in I.A.No.46/2011 was not obeyed by the petitioner herein, an application was filed by the respondent herein in I.A.No.54/2012 under Section 151 CPC seeking for the police aid as stated supra. The Court below allowed the said application by its order dated 18.07.2012. Thus aggrieved against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that police protection cannot be granted under Section 151 CPC directly by the Court without resorting to file an execution petition to execute of the order passed in I.A.No.46 of 2011. Thus according to the learned counsel no order under Section 151 CPC to provide police protection can be granted by the Court for implementing the order passed in I.A.No.46/2011 in the absence of any execution petition. He relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge reported in 2008 (4) LW 470 (A.Diravidamani vs. Chitradevi and others).

4. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Mr.Parthasarathy appearing for the respondent submitted that an order made in I.A.No.46/2011 was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.2841/2011. Though S.L.P. was filed against the said order, the Apex Court has not granted any stay. Therefore in order to implement the order passed in I.A.No.46/2011, the respondent rightly sought for police protection by filing an application under Section 151 CPC. The Court is empowered to issue such direction under Section 151 CPC. There is no necessity for filing any execution petition to execute the order made in I.A.No.46/2011. It is only the enforcement of the order which is interlocutory in nature was soug