*** In appropriate cases, Civil Court has the power to issue suitable directions to police officials as servants of law to extend their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders of Civil Courts or in implementing an order of injunction passed by it. (1992 TLNJ 120).
*** Ordering police protection has got serious consequences, impinging on the rights of the parties.
*** Police aid is not to be granted simultaneously with an order of injunction.
*** In cases where the lower Courts order police protection/police aid in the execution of decrees and orders of the civil Courts or in implementing an order of injunction passed by it, the Court is to record reasons as to how and why the case is the appropriate case to order police aid and for what purpose the police aid is ordered.
*** Police protection/police aid may not be ordered by a non-speaking order. Order of Court for police aid might give room for the parties to take law into their own hands. The party having the order of Court for police aid, might try to disturb the status quo - either by trying to take possession or trying to dispossess the opponent.
*** Order of the Court for police protection is to specifically indicate in precise terms the purpose for which police protection is ordered.
Madras High Court
Abdul Sukhure Bhai vs Durai Kuppuswamy on 23 June, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 Mad 186, 2006 (2) CTC 211
Bench: R Banumathi
Bench: R Banumathi
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9.12.1999, made in I.A. No. 415/1999 in O.S. No. 372/1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam, ordering police protection.
2. The suit property relates to the vacant plot measuring 259 Sq.ft. in S. No. 319/part new S. No. 26, Palani, Gandhi Road, Arakkonam.
3. Case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property is a joint family property of Veeraragavalu and his brothers. The Plaintiff has purchased suit property from the said Veeraragavalu for valid consideration by the Sale Deed dated 23.9.1999. Since the date of purchase, the Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also the share of other brothers, which formed part and parcel of the suit property. The Defendants have no right or title over the suit property; but are attempting to interfere with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment and hence the suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants and his men from in any way interfering with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
4. I.A. No. 414/1999 :-
Along with the suit, the Plaintiff has filed this application for temporary injunction. On the date of filing of the suit, exparte order of interim injunction was granted to the Plaintiff. Along with that application, I.A. No. 415/1999 was also filed to grant police protection and directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police Arakkonam to implement the injunction order. On the date of filing the suit and the application for temporary injunction, petition for police protection was ordered directing police aid. Aggrieved over the grant of police protection, this Revision is preferred.
5. Assailing the impugned order and placing reliance upon 1992 TLNJ 120, the learned counsel has submitted that though the Courts have power to grant police protection in appropriate cases, such order of police protection is not to be ordered simultaneously along with the order of passing interim injunction. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the Judgment of Srinivasan, J. reported in 1996 (1) LW 52. Submitting that the ordering of such police protection simultaneously along with granting of interim injunction will cause serious prejudice, the learned counsel has assailed the impugned order. Drawing the attention of the Court to the averments in the counter statement, the learned counsel has submitted that taking advantage of the interim injunction, and the order of police protection, the Respondent/Plaintiff is only attempting to dispossess the Revision Petitioner/ Defendant and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. Further the learned counsel has also pointed the previous litigation in O.S. No. 179/1985 pending between he Petitioner's vendor Veeragavalu and the Respondent in which injunction was granted in favour of the Respondent.
6. Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the Respondent Plaintiff has submitted that the lower Court is satisfied as to the prima facie case of the Plaintiff and granted interim injunction and also ordered police protection. It is submitted that when the lower Court has satisfied itself about the prima facie case of the Respondent and has rightly exercised its discretion, there is no reason calling for interference in the impugned order granting police protection.
7. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, impugned order and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this revision:-
(i)Whether the learned District Munsif was right in ordering police protection, simultaneously along with the interim injunction made in I.A. No. 414/1999 ?;
(ii)In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the impugned order, ordering police aid, suffers from material irregularity warranting interference.
9. In a referred matter, the Division Bench of this Court considered the question, Whether the civil Courts can issue directions to the police officials in order to execute the order of the civil Court or to implement the order of injunction passed by it, in 1992 TLNJ 120, in answering the point referred, the Division Bench has held that in exercising the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code, the Court can direct the police authorities to implement the order of injunction passed by it, if the party seeks aid of the Court for police protection. The observation of Division Bench is as follows :-
"In the light of the above discussion of ours, the question referred is answered as follows :-
'In appropriate cases, the Civil Court has the power and is indeed under a duty, to issue suitable directions to police officials, as servants of law, to extend their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders of the Civil Courts or in implementing an order of injunction passed by it."
9. In appropriate cases Civil Court has the power to issue suitable directions to the police officials to execute the order of the civil Court or implement the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court. Whether the case in hand was the appropriate case to issue such direction to the police officials and ordering protection, is the main point arising for consideration. By the impugned order, in I.A. No. 415/1999, the learned District Munsif has passed the order,
"Police protection ordered. Petition allowed."
Thus by a non speaking order the learned District Munsif has allowed the petition ordering police aid. No reasons are recorded as to how the case was the appropriate case to order police protection. Judicial mind for such satisfaction is not manifested in the impugned order and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. While granting such police protection, it is always necessary for the lower Courts to record the reasons as to how the case is the appropriate case to issue direction to the police officials and as to why the police protection is ordered. The impugned order being non-speaking suffers from infirmity and cannot be sustained.
10. Ordering police protection has got serious consequences, impinging on the rights of the parties. Generally, at the stage of granting interim injunction, police protection is not to be ordered simultaneously while granting interim injunction. The reason being, the application is before the Court in the initial stages. The Court is granting interim injunction only on the satisfaction of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience. Since the entire materials are not before the Court and the Defendants have not entered appearance, the Court is not apprised of the realities. When the Court is not apprised of the full situation, it would not be proper to pass an order granting police aid. If such orders are being passed, there is every possibility that the party to whom the interim injunction was granted, armed with the order of police protection, might try to take advantage of the order and there is every possibility of dispossessing the person who is in actual possession. This situation could be avoided by not simultaneously granting police protection along with the interim injunction.
11. The view of this Court is also fortified by the decision of Justice Srinivasan reported in 1996 (1) LW 52 wherein the learned Judge has observed that the police aid cannot be granted simultaneously with an order of injunction. The Judgment reported in 1996 (1)LW 52 reads ::
"The necessity of police aid is to be decided by the party and is not to be decided by the Court. In such circumstances, the District Munsif, ought not to have passed such an order. Further, police aid cannot be granted simultaneously with an order of injunction. Only if the Court is satisfied that the order of injunction passed by it is not obeyed by the other party, and the party who has secured the order is not in a position to enjoy the benefits of the order because of the conduct of the other party and police interference is absolutely necessary, the Court can grant an order of police aid. In this case, the District Munsif has thrown to winds all principles of law and justice and passed an order of police aid as if it should automatically follow and attach itself to an order of injunction whenever the civil Court passed an order of injunction. The order granting police aid is wholly unsustainable and requires to be set aside."
12. The suit property relates to 259 sq.ft of vacant plot in Arakkonam town. According to the Plaintiff, he has purchased the same by Sale Deeds dated 23.9.1999 from one Veeraragavalu. The suit has been filed in December 1999, within three months from the date of purchase. Finding that there is a prima facie case, the learned District Munsif has granted interim injunction. Filing of the suit immediately after the sale deed, i.e. within three months from purchase, was not taken note of by the learned District Munsif. It is stated that there is yet another litigation between the Revision Petitioner and the Plaintiff's Vendor namely Veeraragavalu in O.S. No. 179/1985 on the file of District Munsif Court Sholingar which as been transferred to the District Munsif Court Arakkonam and renumbered as O.S. No. 452/1986 and the same is pending. It is further said that in the said suit in I.A. No. 613/1985, temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the Respondent against the said Veeraragavalu, who is the vendor of the Plaintiff. Before ordering the police aid if sufficient opportunity had been given to the Revision Petitioner/ Defendant in the counter statement, the same would have been brought forth and the Court would have been in a proper position to appreciate whether to order police protection or not. But, by passing the order of police protection simultaneously, along with the interim injunction, the Court was not apprised of the facts. The impugned order granting police aid simultaneously along with the granting of interim injunction suffers from material irregularity and also infirmities and the same cannot be sustained.
13. The lower Courts are frequently confronted with the question of issuing police protection. Since the issuance of police aid is often raised in one way or other, by the lower Courts it is appropriate to issue the following guide lines:
*** In appropriate cases, Civil Court has the power to issue suitable directions to police officials as servants of law to extend their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders of Civil Courts or in implementing an order of injunction passed by it. (1992 TLNJ 120).
*** Ordering police protection has got serious consequences, impinging on the rights of the parties.
*** Police aid is not to be granted simultaneously with an order of injunction.
*** In cases where the lower Courts order police protection/police aid in the execution of decrees and orders of the civil Courts or in implementing an order of injunction passed by it, the Court is to record reasons as to how and why the case is the appropriate case to order police aid and for what purpose the police aid is ordered.
*** Police protection/police aid may not be ordered by a non-speaking order. Order of Court for police aid might give room for the parties to take law into their own hands. The party having the order of Court for police aid, might try to disturb the status quo - either by trying to take possession or trying to dispossess the opponent.
*** Order of the Court for police protection is to specifically indicate in precise terms the purpose for which police protection is ordered.
14. In this case, there is no proper exercise of discretion in granting police aid. The learned District Munsif has not recorded any reason as to the necessity in ordering the police protection and the reasons for finding that the case in hand was appropriate case for ordering police protection. There is improper exercise by the learned District Munsif in granting the police aid. The impugned order suffers from material irregularity and infirmity and cannot be sustained and is to be set aside.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order I.A. No. 415/1999 in O.S. No. 372/1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam is set aside and this revision is allowed. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs. Since the suit is of the year 1999, learned District Munsif Arakkonam is directed to expedite trial in O.S. No. 372/1999 and dispose of the same expeditiously.
No comments:
Post a Comment