ORDER:

This revision petition is filed against the orders dated

23.12.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan passed in I.A.No.228 of 2022 in I.A.No.04 of 22022 in O.S.No.01 of 2022 allowing the petition filed under Section 151 of C.P.C to seeking Police aid for implementation of order passed by the Court in I.A.No.4 of 2022 granting Temporary Injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit land.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents. 3. The plaintiff has filed this petition under Section 151 of CPC seeking police aid for implementation of order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2022 granting temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit land.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is never in possession of the Suit Schedule Property as on the date of filing of the Suit or before filing of the suit and he has not filed any latest documents by showing his possession over the property. As such it was not proper to grant police aid to implement the order in question without determining the actual question of legal possession of the suit schedule property. He also contended that nowhere in the C.P.C, 1908 provided granting of police aid without resorting to the provisions of Section 94 CPC or order XXI Rule 32 CPC whereas the question of application of Section 151 CPC does not arise when there are specific provision in the context. It was further contended that there is no explanation in this regard for non-filing of the petition under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the CPC. It is submitted that no inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC can be exercised where there are specific provisions in the code and in view of Order XXI, Rule 32 of the CPC and the Contempt of Court Act, otherwise it amounts to abuse of process of Law and therefore requested to set aside the said order.

5. Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A reads as follows:

“1. In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted of the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.

2. No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.”

6. Initially O.S.No.1 of 2022 is filed by plaintiff against defendant Nos.1 to 7 and filed suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering of the peaceful possession over Schedule-A and B properties. But in the written statement, defendants denied their possession and stated that they are in peaceful possession of the same. During the pendency of the proceedings I.A.No.4 of 2022 is filed for granting of Ad-interim temporary injunction and after hearing both sides, the injunction granted and it was made absolute on 15.07.2022. Later plaintiff filed this application on 23.09.2022 for granting of police aid and mainly contended that defendant Nos.1 to 7 came over the petition schedule property on 13.01.2022 at about 09.00 A.M and trespassed into his land by disobeying the orders of this Court as such, the petitioner lodged complaint before P.S.Kotagiri who issued F.I.R.No.6 of 2022 dated 24.01.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner got no man power with him to prevent the illegal acts of respondents and they are disobeying the injunction order and interfering with the possession.

Therefore, requested them for granting