Courts can exercise inherent powers to direct police assistance for enforcing injunction orders when alternative remedies are inadequate.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner’s prayer to provide police assistance for implementation of the interim order having being refused by the Trial Court, he has approached this Court in the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner is the plaintiff in C.S. No.607 of 2021 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Bhadrak filed by him for partition and permanent injunction claiming 1/3rd share of the suit property. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of a specific portion of the suit land occupied by him as per mutual arrangement and convenience of the parties, though the property has not yet been partitioned by metes and bounds. For necessity, the plaintiff began constructing a house. At the time of casting of the roof, the present Opposite Party-defendant raised serious objection and did not allow him to proceed with the construction and also threatened to demolish the half-constructed building.

3. Since the efforts of the plaintiff for amicable settlement and partition of the property did not yield any result, he was constrained to file the suit. In view of the impending threat of demolition of the half-constructed house, the plaintiff also filed an application for injunction being I.A. No.1 of 2022 in the suit under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court, by order dated 11.05.2022 allowed the application by temporarily restraining the defendants from creating any disturbance and permitted the plaintiff to construct the house. The plaintiff thereafter, proceeded to cast the roof of the house sanctioned under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) as financial assistance had already been released in his favour. But on 24.07.2022, the defendants created serious disturbances and did not allow the plaintiff to raise construction. The plaintiff approached the I.I.C., of Tihidi Police Station seeking protection and implementation of the order but the I.I.C., refused as no communication had been made to it by the civil Court. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff filed an application registered as CMA No.179 of 2022 under Section 151 of CPC, with prayer to direct the I.I.C of Tihidi Police Station to render assistance to him at the time of construction work and roof casting of the house. Said application came to be rejected by order dated 16.12.2022, which is impugned. Be it noted that, being aggrieved by the order of injunction passed against them, the defendants have preferred an appeal being F.A.O. No.48 of 2022 before the learned District Judge, Bhadrak.

5. Heard Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff-Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for the Defendant-Opposite Parties.

6. Mr. Satapathy would argue that the Court below rejected the petition on untenable grounds without appreciating the fact that the same runs contrary to the spirit of the order of injunction already passed by it. Further, the reasoning adopted by the Court below that police assistance cannot be sought for to implement an order of injunction, as it is an extreme step and can be permitted only if the party does not have any remedy, is completely erroneous. Mr. Satapathy also argues that the provision Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC is not a sufficient remedy as even if an order is passed in favour of the plaintiff under the said provision, it would be of no help to him as the order of injunction would remain unimplemented.

Mr. Satapathy has relied upon some judgments in support of his contention, which shall be