advocatemmmohan

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference with order refusing police aid – Permissible where Trial Court failed to consider urgency and existing interim injunction – Para 15–17, 20

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 – Ad-interim injunction – Enforcement – Police aid – Principles governing grant – Court must be cautious when order passed ex parte – However, where respondents had opportunity to contest and no prima facie claim of possession pleaded, police aid justified – Para 16–17

Section 151 CPC – Inherent powers – Grant of police protection to enforce subsisting interim order – When warranted to prevent irreparable loss (standing crop) – Para 16–20

Agricultural Property – Standing crop – Urgency – Court duty to prevent destruction of subject matter pending adjudication – Para 15–17

FACTS (Para 2–8)

The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No.117 of 2025 seeking permanent injunction over Ac.21.05 cents in Sy.No.141 of Velpumadugu village.
Title claimed through registered sale deeds dated 24.06.2023 based on prior partition dated 23.07.2019.
Pattadar passbooks obtained; loan secured from SBI.
Defendants denied plaintiff’s title, contending original owner had alienated entire extent in 1954 and vendors had no subsisting title.
I.A.No.241 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC resulted in ad-interim injunction dated 13.08.2025 restraining interference.
Plaintiff thereafter filed I.A.No.438 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC seeking police aid to enforce injunction and harvest red gram crop.
Trial Court dismissed police aid petition on 02.01.2026.

ISSUE

Whether police aid can be granted to enforce an ad-interim injunction when:

The injunction was initially passed ex parte,
The defendants subsequently filed pleadings,
Standing crop is ripe for harvest, and
There is no specific plea of possession by defendants in written statement?

FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT

1. On Urgency (Para 15)

Red gram is a short duration crop.
Delay in harvesting would result in destruction and irreparable loss.
Trial Court ought to have considered practical urgency rather than mechanically dismissing the petition.

2. On Principle Against Routine Police Aid (Para 16)

The Court recognized:

Police aid should not be granted mechanically to enforce ex parte injunctions.
If serious competing claims of possession exist, police aid may prejudice respondents.

However, in the present case:

Defendants did not plead possession in written statement.
Their defence was only that plaintiff’s vendors had no title.
Tahsildar’s endorsement regarding alleged temple donation was unsupported by evidence.
No material showed respondents cultivated the crop.

Thus, no prima facie competing possessory claim existed.

3. On Balance of Convenience (Para 17)

Denial of police aid would cause loss to petitioner.
Grant of police aid would not prejudice respondents.

4. Rejection of Alternative Suggestion (Para 18–19)

Respondents requested appointment of Commissioner to take possession of crop.

Court declined:

In absence of pleaded possessory claim, such step would cause unwarranted prejudice to petitioner.

OPERATIVE PORTION (Para 20)

Revision allowed.
Trial Court order dismissing I.A.No.438 of 2025 set aside.
Police aid granted for one week to enforce interim injunction.
Trial Court directed to dispose of I.A.No.241 of 2025 without delay.
No costs.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

A. Enforcement of Interim Injunction

Principle:

An injunction order must be meaningful.
Courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to ensure implementation.

Police aid is not automatic but discretionary, based on:

Existence of valid subsisting order,
Threat of disobedience,
Absence of serious competing possession claim,
Irreparable loss if aid denied.

All conditions were satisfied.

B. Distinction Between Title Dispute and Possession

Defendants:

Challenged plaintiff’s title.
Did not assert independent possession in pleadings.

In injunction suits, possession is central, not ultimate title.
Since interim protection existed and no possessory plea was substantiated, enforcement was justified.

C. Supervisory Correction

The Trial Court:

Focused narrowly on technical objection regarding ex parte nature.
Failed to consider crop urgency and absence of competing possession claim.

Thus, supervisory correction under Article 227 was warranted.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Police aid may be granted to enforce an ad-interim injunction where the respondents, though subsequently heard, have not pleaded or established any prima facie possessory claim over the disputed property, and denial of aid would result in destruction of standing crop causing irreparable loss. Courts must balance caution against ex parte enforcement with the necessity to preserve the subject matter of the suit.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

Tuesday, February 17, 2026