Orissa High Court: In a case deciding whether police assistance could be directed for implementation of an interim injunction order permitting construction of a house, a Single Judge Bench of Sashikanta Mishra, J., held that the Trial Court’s refusal was unsustainable. The Court clarified that Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) confers wide inherent powers to protect rights when available provisions are inadequate and directed the trial court to instruct the police authority to render all assistance to ensure the injunction order is implemented.
Background:
The petitioner had filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction claiming one-third share in the suit property. He was in possession of a specific portion of the land and began constructing a house. At the time of roof casting, the defendants objected and threatened demolition.
An application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed on 11-05-2022, restraining the defendants from creating disturbance and permitting construction. Despite this, disturbances were created on 24-07-2022, leading the petitioner to seek police protection. The police refused as no communication had been made by the civil court. Consequently, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed seeking direction to the police to assist during construction, which was rejected on 16-12-2022.
However, the petitioner argued that rejection was contrary to the spirit of the injunction order and that Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC was not a sufficient remedy, as violation would leave the injunction unimplemented. Subsequently, the defendants contended that CPC nowhere provides for police help and that remedy lies under Order 39 Rule 2-A, stressing that police assistance is an extreme step not to be exercised routinely.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the Trial Court had already found prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in favour of the petitioner, and had passed a positive order permitting construction. It was observed that mere filing of an appeal cannot and does not operate as a stay of the order appealed against, unless an order of stay operation of the same has been passed. It highlighted that no stay had been shown to exist, and therefore pendency of appeal had no bearing on the application seeking police assistance.
The Court emphasised that reference to Order 39 Rule 7 CPC was fallacious, as detention, preservation, and inspection of property were not involved. It was analysed that while disturbance by defendants would amount to violation of injunction, the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC may not be sufficient. It was further observed that Section 151 CPC confers wide inherent powers to protect rights when available provisions are inadequate.
The Court referred to Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi, 2007 (12) SCC 201 and subsequent coordinate Bench decisions, and underscored that police assistance, though an extreme step, can be directed if the situation so warrants. It was stressed that unless the petitioner is enabled to construct the house, the order of injunction would be rendered a dead letter. It was noted that the Trial Court had reduced itself to a mute spectator while its order remained unimplemented.
Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The Court, thus, directed the trial court to instruct the police authority concerned to render all assistance for implementation of the injunction order dated 11-05-2022.
[Sayed Ekram Saha v. Haroon Khan, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 4530, decided on 12-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: P.K. Satapathy, Advocate.
For the Respondents: P.K. Khuntia, Advocate.