Courts have the authority to enforce injunctions and restore status quo in cases of violations, ensuring compliance with earlier orders.

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred by petitioner-defendant No. 1, who is aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-7), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram. Vide impugned order, the Court of first instance had directed the implementation of the interim injunction earlier granted vide order dated 23.08.2024 and police aid was granted for removal of any encroachment over the common passage.

2. The impugned order dated 28.08.2025 was passed on an application preferred by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking police assistance for removal of alleged encroachment made in violation of the injunction order dated 23.08.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following twin grounds:

(i) That the Court of first instance could not have proceeded under Section 151 CPC, and any action for alleged disobedience of the injunction order could have only been taken under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC.

(ii) That the Court of first instance failed to conduct any proper inquiry to establish that the petitioner had committed any encroachment after the passing of the injunction order dated 23.08.2024. It is asserted that the direction for removal of the iron gate, as per the said order, has already been duly complied with by the petitioner (Defendant No. 1).

4. On 23.08.2024, the following order was passed:

“….Hence, in light of the discussion made above and authorities cited, this Court is satisfied that a fit case for grant of injunction to the plaintiff is made out and as a result, the defendants are directed to remove the iron gate blocking the free ingress and outgress of the common rasta admeasuring 24 feet and the defendants are also restrained from making any encroachment over the said common passage of 24 feet till the disposal of suit. The plaintiff is entitled to seek the aid of police for removal of any encroachment from the common rasta as per the terms of compromise marked as Ex.C-1. Consequently, the present application Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is hereby allowed…”.

5. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction, wherein it was alleged that a public street/common rasta exists adjacent to the property owned by the plaintiff-respondent. It was further asserted that the defendant-petitioner had intentionally and willfully encroached upon the said 24- feet wide common rasta by constructing a wall in the middle of the rasta, and also by erecting a toilet and bathroom thereon.

6. The matter was subsequently compromised between the parties, as recorded vide Exhibit C-1, wherein the defendant-petitioner agreed to maintain

24-feet wide rasta free from any encroachment.

7. Pursuant to the passing of the injunction order, and with the assistance of the police, the wall constructed in the middle of the common rasta, as well as the iron gate, were removed in compliance with the said order.

8. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent filed another application seeking police assistance for the removal of any alleged encroachment made by the defendant-petitioner over the entire 24-feet wide rasta, as depicted in the site plan marked as Ex. C-2.

9. This application was vehemently opposed by the defendant- petitioner (Defendant No. 1), who prayed for its dismissal on the ground that the said application was a pressure tactic and has been camouflaged as a plea for enforcement of interim injunction orders.

10. It was submitted by the petitioner that the injunction orders were passed on the basis of a compromise, duly recorded and marked