Sec.94 C.P.C- Sec.151 C.P.C.- Or.39 , Rule 2 A C.P.C. - Or.21, Rule 32 C.P.C. - Suit for injunction - ad-interim injunction pending disposal of suit - Police Aid as the petitioners involved in violating it. - Trial court issued Police Aid - Revision - A.P. HIGH COURT held that since the view taken in POLAVARAPU NAGAMANI's case cannot be held to be good law and since it is not acceptable - Though the order of injunction under Order XXXIX of Civil Procedure Code is only interim in nature, still it clothes the person who obtained the order with certain rights and he is entitled to enforce the aforesaid right against the party who is bound by the order. No doubt in such a case, the aggrieved party himself could approach the police authorities to prevent the obstruction to the enforcement of the order or to the exercise of the right which he derives under the order of Court. But when the same person brings to the notice of the Court that the enforcement of the order is sought to be prevented or obstructed, the Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 151 CPC and direct the police authorities to render all aid to the aggrieved party in the implementation of the Court's order. - 2015 A.P. (2013) MSK LAW REPORTS

 
INTERIM INJUNCTION & POLICE AID
LEGAL POSITION
Section 94 CPC enjoins -
"Supplemental proceedings. -In order to prevent the ends of justice from being
defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed,-
(a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to
show- cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails
to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison;
(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging
to him and to place the same at the disposal of the Court or order the
attachment of any property;
(c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person
guilty thereof to the civil prison and order that his property be attached and
sold;
(d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties
by attaching and selling his property;
(e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just
and convenient."

Order XXXIX Rule 1 enjoins -

Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.-Where in any suit it is
proved by affidavit or otherwise --
(a)  that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted,
damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution
of a decree, or
(b)  that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his
property with a view to defrauding his creditors,
(c)   That the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise
cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the
suit,
the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or
make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting,
damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or
dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in
relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until
the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

Rule 2 enjoins -
Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.-(1) In any suit for
restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury
of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff
may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after
judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the
defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained, of , or
any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract
or relating to the same property or right;
        (2)  The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to
the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or
otherwise as the Court thinks fit.

Rule 2A enjoins -
Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.-(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 or 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.

Order XXI Rule 32 enjoins -

"Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an
injunction.- 
(1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific
performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an
injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and
has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a
decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or ,
in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an
injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his
property, or by both. 
(2) Whereas the party against whom a decree for specific
performance or for an injunction has been passed is a corporation, the decree
may be enforced by the attachment of the property of the corporation or, with
the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison of the directors or
other principal officers thereof, or by both attachment and detention.  
(3) Where any attachment under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) has remained in force
for six months if the judgment-debtor has not obeyed the decree and the decree-
holder has applied to have the attached property sold, such property may be
sold; and out of the proceeds the Court may award to the decree-holder such
compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance (if any) to the
judgment-debtor on his application. 
(4) Where the judgment-debtor has obeyed the
decree and paid all costs of executing the same which he is bound to pay, or
where, at the end of six months from the date of the attachment, no application
to have the property sold has been made, or if made has been refused, the
attachment shall cease. 
(5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a
contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may, in lieu of or
in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act
required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree-holder or
some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment-debtor,
and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such
manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in
the decree.

        Therefore, under this Section contemplated the power to issue warrant
against the defendant to compel him to give security, to commit to civil prison,
to direct to furnish security, to grant temporary injunction, in case of
disobedience to commit the person to civil prison and attach and sell his
property and to appoint receiver and/or to make such other interlocutory order
as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient.

Settled legal Positions
A.P.High court -

"To prevent the ends of justice from being defeated" the civil Court can pass
any orders as specifically mentioned in Section 94(a) to (d) and is also
empowered to make any order which it appears to be just and convenient to meet
the ends of justice. Section 95 is intended to prevent abuse of power of Court
and makes a party obtaining temporary injunction or an order of arrest or an
order of attachment without sufficient grounds, liable for compensation at the
behest of the party who suffers arrest/attachment or temporary injunction. It is
settled law that ordinarily no Court can pass an interlocutory order if it has
effect or tend to be susceptible of an inference of prejudging some important or
sensitive issue in the main matter. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that if
need arises to enforce an order of temporary injunction a civil Court can always
pass an order under Section 94(e) of CPC (besides Section 151 of CPC) directing
the local police to give protection to the party who is threatened in spite of
the Court order. But, in all cases filed under Section 151 of CPC or cases filed
invoking Section 94(e) of CPC, the civil Court cannot grant an order directing
the police to give protection to safeguard the property, which is subject matter
of the suit."
A.P.High court - 
In fact in POLAVARAPU NAGAMANI's case, the view taken in J.
JAGANNATH REDDY's case was accepted and it is observed and held in this context    
as follows:
"
The civil Court cannot pass any order ignoring the specific provisions of CPC.
Court directs all the civil Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh to
exercise abundant caution in dealing with interlocutory applications filed by
the party obtaining an order of injunction seeking police protection.  
For the
guidance of all the civil Courts, Court holds and lay down as under:
"(i) When the allegations are made by the party obtaining an order of
injunction, that the said order has been violated, an application seeking police
protection would not lie. 
The aggrieved party has to necessarily file execution
petition under Order XXI Rule 32 or an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of
C PC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for contempt of the Court.
(ii) When a petition is filed seeking police protection, whether or not to
exercise of power under Section 94(e) or Section 151 of C PC, the facts alleged
or pleaded, an order for police protection cannot be passed in a routine manner.
(iii)  If an application is filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction
alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the
order of injunction, subject to proof, the Court has power to order police
protection imposing necessary conditions not to interfere with the life and
liberty, and rights of the opposite party.
(iv) The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of
injunction or alleged breach, disobedience or violation of an order of
injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of
beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities."

This observation with regards to the application of Order XXI Rule32
is quite contrary to the observations made in KANWAR SINGH SAINI's case 
where  a clear distinction was made in between the application of that provision and
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. 
In other words when the word 'decree' used in
Order XXI Rule 32 is only referable to a decree passed in a suit for permanent
injunction after conducting necessary trial, an order passed in an interlocutory
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC cannot be equated with that word
'decree' for the purpose of taking recourse under the former provision when
there was violation of the interlocutory order.As the word 'decree' used in Order XXI
Rule 32 is quite distinguishable from an interlocutory order of interim
injunction passed it cannot be said that Section 141 is also extended to that
interlocutory order. 
Hence the view taken in POLAVARAPU NAGAMANI's case cannot  be held to be good law and hence is not acceptable. 


AP HIGH COURT
there being no express provision in the  
Code for the enforcement of the order, it is not only proper but also necessary
that the Court should render all aid to the aggrieved party to derive full
benefits of the order.  
Though the order of injunction under Order XXXIX of
Civil Procedure Code is only interim in nature, still it clothes the person who
obtained the order with certain rights and he is entitled to enforce the
aforesaid right against the party who is bound by the order. No doubt in such a
case, the aggrieved party himself could approach the police authorities to
prevent the obstruction to the enforcement of the order or to the exercise of
the right which he derives under the order of Court. 
But when the same person
brings to the notice of the Court that the enforcement of the order is sought to
be prevented or obstructed, the Court should exercise its inherent power under
Section 151 CPC and direct the police authorities to render all aid to the
aggrieved party in the implementation of the Court's order. 
If the police
authorities are under a legal duty to enforce the law and the public or the
citizens are entitled to seek direction under Article 226 of the Constitution
for the discharge of such duties by the Police Authorities the civil Courts can
also give appropriate directions under Section 151 CPC to render aid to the
aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders of Court.
It cannot be said that in such a case the exercise of the inherent power under
Section 151, Civil Procedure Code is devoid of jurisdiction. 
There is no express
provision in the code prohibiting the exercise of such a power and the Court can
give appropriate directions at the instance of the aggrieved parties to the
police authorities to render its aid for enforcement of the Court's order in a
lawful manner. 
The exercise of such power is necessary for the ends of justice
or to prevent abuse of the process and the civil Court has ample jurisdiction to
pass such orders under Section 151 CPC.  

However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex
parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police
aid to enforce that order.  Under the guise of an order of ad-interim injunction
and also the corresponding police aid granted there may be a possibility of
vacating from the property in the litigation a person who is in actual
possession of the property as of right. Therefore, whenever such order of
granting police aid is resisted it is advisable to hear both the parties to the
litigation and dispose of the petition filed for interim injunction pending
disposal of the main proceedings itself.  Further some times question of
identity of the property in dispute arises.  Thereby unless there is clear
identity of the property in dispute mere granting of Police aid would not be
suffice.   In such case, an Advocate Commissioner is to be appointed necessarily
to localize the property and only subject to the localization of the properties,
necessary Police aid can be granted or both the Police aid and localization of
the property can be granted simultaneously to do what is needed.
     In the result, subject to the observations made, the Civil
Revision Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.  No costs.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)