1 WP 5737.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5737 OF 2011 1. Smt. Rajanibai Kamlakar Deshmukh Age : 60 Yrs. ,Occ. Household, R/o : Kasba Peth, Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Purushottam Laxmanrao Deshmukh Age : 60 Yrs. , Occ. Service, R/o : Adarsha Nagar, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 3. Balkrushna Purushottam Deshmukh Age : 35 Yrs. ,Occ. Agril. & Legal practitioner, R/o : Adarsha Nagar, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Vithal S/o Sopan Gunjal Age : 75 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Kasba Peth, Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Dnyanoba S/o Sopan Gunjal Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Kasba Peth, Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. 3. Navnath S/o Namdeo Gunjal Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., 2 WP 5737.2011 - [ J ] R/o : Kasba Peth, Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. 4. Mahadeo Govind Gunjal Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Kasba Peth, Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. 5. Ashruba Baburao Gunjal Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Kasba Peth, Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. 6. Ashok S/o Rajaram Gunjal Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Kasba Peth, Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for Resp. No. 1 to 6. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 06/09/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3 WP 5737.2011 - [ J ] 3. The petitioners are the original defendants. The present Respondents had filed Suit for injunction. In the said Suit, the present petitioners/defendants filed counter claim. Along with counter claim, the petitioners also filed an application for temporary injunction. Similar application was filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the present petitioners and rejected the temporary injunction application filed by the present respondents, thereby injunction was clamped against the present respondents from interfering and obstructing the possession of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the original plaintiffs filed Appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Order of the trial Court granting injunction in favour of the present petitioners/original defendants. Thereafter, the present petitioners filed an application U/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ] for police aid. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Mr. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order granting injunction in favour of the present petitioners is in force. The trial Court rejected the application for police aid only on the ground that the petitioners have remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2- A of the Code and on the said lone count has 4 WP 5737.2011 - [ J ] refrained from entertaining the said application. The learned counsel contends that an application U/s 151 of the Code for police aid is maintainable even though the remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2- A of the Code is provided. 5. Mr. Jadhavar, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to 6 submits that the present respondents have challenged the Order of the District Court by way of Writ Petition and the same is subjudiced before this Court. The learned counsel contends that the respondents are in possession of the property and with the aid of police, the petitioners want to dispossess the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is disobedience of the order of injunction, even the remedy available is under Order XXXIX Rule 2- A of the Code, such an application is not maintainable. 6. The trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioners for police aid solely on the ground that the petitioners have remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2- A of the Code if the order of injunction is disobeyed. 7. The provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2- A of the Code is a provision limited for taking action against an erring party disobeying the order of injunction. That would not mean that the Court does 5 WP 5737.2011 - [ J ] not have jurisdiction to entertain an application for police aid U/s 151 of the Code, if the facts and circumstances of the case so merit. No doubt, the powers of the Court are to be sparingly exercised for grant of police aid. If the Court is satisfied regarding the case made out by the petitioner, then the only police aid can be granted. In the present matter, the court has not considered the circumstances and on the ground that the petitioner has a right to claim relief Order XXXIX Rule 2- A of the Code has refrained from exercising the jurisdiction. 8. In light of the above, I quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the trial Court to decide the application [ Exh. 75 ] filed by the petitioner for police aid afresh. Needless to state, the parties are at liberty to file such document in support of their stand. The trial Court after hearing the parties shall decide the application expeditiously within the period of one ( 1 ) month from today. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 5737.2011 - [ J ]