Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Custom Search
Breach of injunction
This query is : Resolved
Report Abuse Follow Query Ask a Query
Sir/Madame Temperory injunction has been passed restraining defendent from further construction
until partiion of suit property is done by meets and bounds. But defendent not obeying the court
orders by continuing the construction, taking advantage of physical location of construction planned
and spread on a combined land of suit property and the adecent land). Land adjecent land of suit
property belongs to her son's. Defendent is confusing the identification of suite property.
1)Can a court order of police aid u/s 151 from court for police aid can help me. Does police have an
authority to identify the suit property refering court orders.
2)What action can police take if the defendent continues the breach of injunction inspite of police
warning..?
3)Do police has powers to undergo a spot punchnama of the ongoing activity.
4)Can police record statements of both the party?
5) Can I include pray for assistant from local Talati or TLR office to assist police to identify the suite
property as Defendant is confusing and misleading police for I sent if I at of suite property?
6) What are the chances of getting an Exparte order for an Police Aid U/s 151.
7)Does police has powers to detain the Defendant if disobeying the injunction order?
8) What are the evidences granted by court to show breach of injunction for an construction activity?
“
--Order of temporary injunction has to be obeyed by parties to it—Police protection may be granted in
writ jurisdiction when Court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree of civil Court.
xxx
16. However, the Supreme Court in Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi ((2007) 12 SCC 201), held that
when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the court can,
by exercising its inherent power, give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the
aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also
order police protection for implementation of such order. It declared:
"14. Before we deal with this question of possession as to who was in actual possession at the
relevant point of time it would be appropriate to note that the order for restoration was passed by the
trial court on an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A question may arise
whether such an application can be entertained by the court when specific provision under Order 39
of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made for grant of injunction in the form of mandatory order in
the exercise of power under the said order. Therefore to decide this aspect of the matter, let us
consider the scope of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 151 reads as under:
"151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise
affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of
justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."
15. On a bare perusal of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said to be in dispute
that Section 151 confers wide powers on the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the
ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
16. The power of Section 151 to pass order of injunction in the form of restoration of possession of
the code is not res integra now.
17. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (AIR 1962 SC 527) while dealing
with the power of the court to pass orders for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the
process of the court, this Court held that the courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary order
of injunction in the circumstances which are not covered under the provisions of Order 39 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. However, it was held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the inherent
power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be exercised only in exceptional
circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure.
18. At the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or
act in violation of the said order the court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in
the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction
to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of
the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order.
19. It is also well settled that when in the event of utter violation of the injunction order, the party
forcibly dispossesses the other, the court can order restoration of possession to the party wronged."
(emphasis supplied)
xxx
20. So a party, who obtained temporary injunction orders, and is complaining of violation of such
orders, may file not only an execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC or an application under
Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC seeking attachment and/or arrest of the violator for Contempt of Court,
but also an application seeking police protection under Section 151 CPC from the Civil Court. With
great respect to the Division Bench, I do not agree with it's view that if a party were to be allowed to
seek police protection under Section 151 CPC to implement an interim injunction order granted in his
favour, it would render Order XXXIX Rule 2A and Order XXI Rule 32 otiose.
xxx
23. The High Courts of Bombay and Madras have also taken the view that police assistance may be
granted for enforcing or for implementing orders of temporary injunction. In Smt. Nirabai J. Patil v.
Narayan D. Patil (AIR 2004 Bombay 225), the Bombay High Court held :
"If Civil Court which has passed the order of temporary injunction takes a view that there is no power
vested in the Court to direct the police to grant assistance for enforcing or for implementation of the
order of temporary injunction, the very purpose of granting order of temporary injunction may be trust
rated in a given case. It is the duty of every police Officer to enforce the law of the land. The duties of
police officers are reflected in Section 64 and Section 66 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. In my
opinion, the view taken by the learned Trial Judge that "There is no provision for police and for
execution of interim order", is totally incorrect. The learned Judge failed to appreciate that he has a
power under Section 151 of the said Code to pass the order directing that police help should be made
available provided facts of the case warrant passing of such order.
8. As observed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the grant of police aid is an extreme step and
therefore order for grant of police help or police assistance cannot be made unless the Court is fully
convicted about the existence of grave emergency such as apprehension of violence by the persons
against whom the order has been passed. It is very difficult to give exhaustive list of circumstances in
which the Court can exercise the said power. However, said power is to be exercised with caution and
the said power can be exercised only after the Court is fully convinced of existence of grave situation
warranting exercise of said power."
24. In N. Karpagam and others v. P. Deivanaiammal and others (AIR 2003 Madras 219), Justice P.
Sathasivam, (as His Lordship then was) also held that the Civil Court can give direction to the Police
authorities to render aid to the aggrieved party with regard to implementation of the injunction order
passed by the Court. His Lordship held :
It is also relevant to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1992 TLNJ 120 (cited
supra), wherein after considering the relevant provisions relating to grant of injunction and Section
151 C.P.C. the Bench has concluded that,
"In view of the above position of law, it has to be held that in appropriate cases, directions under
Section 151 of the Code can be issued by the Civil Courts to the police authorities to render aid to the
aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the order of temporary injunction or a
decree for permanent injunction granted by the Civil Court."
"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 implementing an order of injunction passed by it."
25. An order of temporary injunction has to be obeyed by the parties to it and when the plaintiff
complains that the defendant is committing breach of the said order and seeks police protection, the
Court is under an obligation to accord such protection. Unless this is done, the rule of law will not
prevail and judicial orders would not be effectively implemented. Granting of such orders would
uphold the dignity and effectiveness of the judiciary.
”
(emphasis supplied)
3. FURTHERMORE, in the matter of E. Venkatarama Naidu and Ors. v. E. Ramachandra Naidu and
Ors., 2015 (5) ALT 238 , the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE
STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH speaking through Learned M.S.
Ramachandra Rao, J. vide Civil Revision Petition No. 601 of 2015 as Decided On: 12.08.2015, has
held —
“
FACTS OF THE CASE: Adjudication of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.21 R.32, O.39 R.2(a), S.151
(¶ 9) — xxx
In Gampala Anthaiah's case 2014 (2) ALT 661 : 2014 (2) ALD 281 (supra) categorically held that a
party, who obtained temporary injunction orders and is complaining of violation of such orders, may
file not only any execution petition under Order XXI Rule 32 C.P.C. or application under Order XXXIX
Rule 2-A C.P.C., but he can also file an application seeking police aid under Section 151 C.P.C. from
the Civil Court.
xxx
(¶ 11) — Since both parties stated that C.M.A.(SR) No. 345 of 2013 filed against the order dated
14.6.2013 in I.A. No. 552 of 2012 is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, the said Court is
directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
”
________________________________________
Anil @ Satyagraha.com
P: +91 7095 776633
P: +91 8019 291111
DISCLAIMER NOTICE: This Message and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. This message or any
part of it is not construed to be Legal Advice. For legal help, kindly contact a lawyer that specializes in
the area of your concern. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
Message and destroy all copies of the original message.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
message or any action taken in reliance on this Message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
In addition to Anil Satyagrahas contribution I'd like to add that whenever there is a wilful disobedience
of injunction order you can get the remedy of exemplary damages and also the person who
committed breach of injunction will be liable for civil contempt of court for which punishment is 6
months imprisonment and fine.
← Previous Next →
You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .
Unanswered Queries
Search query
Popular Recent
Unregistered association
Railway claim
Registration of apartment
Legal drafting
Experts Home
Browse by Category
Apply As Expert
Corporate Law - 5514 Civil Law - 25594
Daily Digest Constitutional Law - 2584 Criminal Law - 21229
Hall of Fame
Advertise Contact Us
Terms of Use
Email address...
© 2019 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.