Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227
Civil Revision – Interference with interlocutory order – Police aid
High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, can interfere where the trial Court adopts an unduly technical approach and fails to exercise discretion judiciously in refusing police aid, despite existence of a subsisting interim injunction and imminent threat of irreparable loss.
(Paras 15–17, 20)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 151
Police aid – Scope and principles
Police aid can be granted to enforce an existing interim injunction order where circumstances disclose imminent threat of interference and irreparable loss, and such grant would not cause prejudice to the opposite party.
(Paras 15–17)
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Interim injunction
Ad-interim injunction – Enforcement
Mere fact that injunction is ad-interim and passed initially in the absence of defendants does not by itself bar grant of police aid, especially where defendants have since entered appearance, filed pleadings, and failed to assert any independent right, title or possession over the suit property.
(Paras 16–17)
Standing crop – Protection pending adjudication
Where existence of standing crop is undisputed and delay in adjudication would result in destruction of crop, Court must adopt a pragmatic approach to protect possession and prevent irreparable loss pending disposal of interlocutory application.
(Paras 15–16)
Pleadings – Absence of claim of possession by defendants
In the absence of specific pleadings by defendants asserting possession or cultivation of suit land, refusal of police aid on the ground that title dispute is pending is unsustainable.
(Paras 16–17)
Trial Court – Duty to balance equities
Trial Court ought to consider practical consequences such as destruction of standing crop and should not confine itself to technical objections when interim protection is already in force.
(Paras 15–16)
Commissioner – Appointment – Inappropriateness
Appointment of a Commissioner to take custody of standing crop is not warranted where defendants have not pleaded or established any competing interest over the crop or land.
(Paras 18–19)
Relief – Police aid for limited duration
Grant of police aid for a limited period to enable enforcement of interim injunction, coupled with direction to dispose of the pending injunction application expeditiously, is a balanced and equitable course.
(Para 20)
ANALYSIS (ISSUE-WISE)
1. Nature of Dispute and Interim Protection
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and obtained an ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from interfering with possession. The injunction application itself was pending enquiry. During pendency, the plaintiff sought police aid due to alleged interference at the stage when red gram crop was ripe for harvesting.
(Paras 5–7)
2. Trial Court’s Refusal of Police Aid
The trial Court refused police aid on the reasoning that:
(i) injunction was ad-interim,
(ii) no specific acts of interference were pleaded, and
(iii) police aid cannot be granted prior to adjudication of injunction application.
(Paras 10–11)
3. High Court’s Reappraisal
The High Court noted that:
• existence of standing red gram crop was undisputed,
• defendants did not plead any right, title or possession in themselves,
• defendants merely disputed plaintiff’s title by asserting third-party ownership, without evidence,
• delay would result in destruction of crop causing irreparable loss.
(Paras 15–17)
4. Principle Governing Police Aid
The Court reiterated that although police aid should not be granted mechanically to enforce ad-interim orders, such restraint applies mainly where defendants assert competing possession or rights. In the present case, absence of such pleadings and urgency created by standing crop justified grant of police aid.
(Paras 16–17)
5. Rejection of Commissioner Proposal
The suggestion to appoint a Commissioner to take possession of crop was rejected as it would prejudice the petitioner, particularly when defendants never claimed interest over the crop or land in their pleadings.
(Paras 18–19)
6. Moulding of Relief
The Court balanced equities by granting police aid only for a limited period of one week and simultaneously directing the trial Court to dispose of the injunction application without delay.
(Para 20)
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Police aid can be granted to enforce an existing interim injunction even at the ad-interim stage where defendants have entered appearance, filed pleadings, and failed to assert any independent right, title or possession, and where refusal would result in irreparable loss.
-
Existence of a standing crop and imminent danger of its destruction constitutes a compelling circumstance warranting police protection pending adjudication.
-
Refusal of police aid solely on the ground that injunction is ad-interim, without examining pleadings, equities, and practical consequences, amounts to improper exercise of discretion.
-
Where defendants do not claim interest in land or crop, appointment of a Commissioner to take possession of crop is unwarranted.
-
Grant of police aid for a limited duration, coupled with a direction for early disposal of the injunction application, is a just and equitable solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment