Sri.Ganesh Naik., learned counsel for the petitioners has

appeared in person.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to as per their ranking and status before the Trial

Court.

- 3 -

The brief facts are these:

The plaintiff filed a suit on the file of the I Addl. Civil

Judge & J.M.F.C., Kalaburagi in O.S.No.412/2017 for a grant of

perpetual injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.68/Aa

measuring 08 Acres 12 Guntas situated at Khandal Village,

Kalaburagi Taluk & District against the defendant. He made an

application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for the grant

of temporary injunction. The defendant resisted the application.

The Trial Court vide order dated 24.04.2018 rejected the

application.

As the matter stood thus, the defendant moved an

application under Section 151 of the Code seeking a direction to

the Jurisdictional Police i.e., Farhatabad Police to give

protection to him. The plaintiff filed detailed objections. The

Trial Court vide order dated 11.09.2019 partly allowed the

application thereby directing the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Farhatabad Police Station to render the necessary help to the

defendant and his men in implementing the order of temporary

injunction. This order is called into question in this writ petition

on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of the Writ

Petition.

- 4 -

Sri.Ganesh Naik., learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the order of the Trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and

against the well-settled principles of law.

Next, he submits that the application filed by the plaintiff

seeking an order of temporary injunction has been rejected by

the Trial Court.

A further submission is made that there is no enforceable

order in favor of the defendant. He submitted that this was the

specific objection raised by the plaintiff in the statement of

objections to the application. However, the Trial court has

erroneously allowed the application without appreciating the

position of law.

Learned counsel vehemently contended that the refusal

to grant an injunction will not amount to the grant of any

injunction to the defendant. There is no positive order in favor

of the defendant which could be enforced.

Lastly, he submitted that the reason assigned by the Trial

Court for allowing the application reflects the casual approach

of the Court towards the facts of the case. Hence, he submits

- 5 -

that viewed from any angle, the order is illegal hence, the same

is liable to be quashed and the Writ Petition may be allowed.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the

petitioner and perused the Writ papers and also the Annexures

with utmost care.

The

following

points

would

arise

for

my

consideration:

1) Is it proper to issue directions to render

police aid in the absence of a positive order

for implementation?

2) Whether the exercise of inherent power is

just and proper?

This is an interesting case to answer a query about the

casual exercise of the inherent powers by the Trial Court to

issue suitable directions to police for the implementation of an

injunction order.

Before answering the point let us quickly glance at

Section 151 of the Code.

- 6 -

As is well known that Section 151 of the Code sets out

the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be

necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the

process of the Court. The principle is well-settled that when the

Code of Civil Procedure is silent regarding a procedural aspect,

the inherent power of the Court can come to its aid to act

ex debitio justiate for doing real and substantial justice

between the parties. It is clear that if there is no specific

provision that prohibits the grant of relief in an application filed

under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Courts have

all the necessary powers under Section 151 to make a suitable

order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

When parties violate the order of injunction and stay

order or act in violatio