1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1664 OF 2009 1. Prakash S/o Shivaji Gadakh } Age : 45 years, Occ.: Agriculture, } R/o : Wambhuri, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } 2. Sambhaji S/o Shivaji Gadakh } Age : 40 years, Occ.: Agriculture, } R/o : Wambhuri, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist. Ahmednagar. } .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Shivaji S/o Eknath Rahane } Age : 39 Years, Occ. Argiculture } R/o At present Wambhuri, } Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. } 2. Dnyandeo S/o Narayan Gadakh } Age : 48 Years, Occ. Argiculture } R/o Wambhuri, Tq. Rahuri, } Dist.Ahmednagar. } .... RESPONDENTS 2 Mr. R.R. Karpe, Counsel for Petitioner. Mr. T.G. Gaikwad, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. [ CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. ] DATE : 24/7/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Heard Mr. R.R. Karpe, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr. T.G. Gaikwad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 and 2. 3. Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Order dated 11/2/2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Rahuri on an application below Exh. 27 filed by the Respondent no. 1 seeking police aid for implementing the injunction order 3 passed in favour of Respondent No. 1. 4. The few facts of the matter are as under. Respondent no. 1 filed R.C.S. No. 341 of 2006 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rahuri in respect of Gut No. 956/1 restraining petitioners and Respondent no. 2 from interfering his peaceful possession on the suit property. In that proceeding, Respondent no. 1 preferred application for injunction and same came to be allowed. In spite of the said injunction order, petitioners interfere Respondent no. 1’s peaceful possession in respect of the suit property and petitioners restrained respondent no. 1 from cultivating field on 29/12/2008 and, therefore, respondent no. 1 preferred application dated 30/12/2008 below Exh. 27 for police protection to cultivate the suit property. It is the case of the Respondent no. 1 that on 29/12/2008 when he tried to cultivate his agricultural land, the petitioners and respondent no. 2 obstructed him and gave threat to his life. On the said application, the trial Court passed order and allowed the same. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11/2/2009, the petitioners preferred present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the trial Court without hearing 4 them, passed the impugned order. The petitioners further submitted that they requested the trial Court to adjourn the date of hearing for filing their reply to the application below Exh. 27. The said application for adjournment was refused by the trial court and passed impugned order. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the trial court ought to have assigned cogent reasons wile drawing conclusion that respondent no. 1 is entitled for police aid to implement the injunction order. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the trial court without assigning any reasons and without considering the merits on record, allowed Exh. 27. He submitted that in support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner relied on Judgment in the matter of Nirabai J. Patil V/s Narayan D. Patil reported in 2004 (3) Bom. C.R. - 226. He specifically relied on para nos. 5 and 8 of this authority, which reads as under : “ 5. Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as said Code) provides that the provisions of the said Code relating to execution of decree are also applicable to execution of orders in so far as they are applicable. Under the 5 provisions of Rule 32 of Order XXI, mode is prescribed for execution of decree for injunction. In so far as decree for injunction is concerned, the same can be executed by attachment of property of the person disobeying the decree for injunction or by detention of such person or by both. Rule 2-A of Order XXXIX of the said Code empowers the Court to penalise the person who has disobeyed the order of temporary injunction. Rule 11 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure permits the Court to strike out defence of defendant who commits breach of an order of the Court. The object of all the said provisions is to ensure that the orders passed by the Court of law are implemented and obeyed by all concerned. Section 151 of the said Code saves inherent power to Civil Court to make such orders as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice. Some High Courts have taken a view that under section 151 of the said Code, Court has power to direct the Police Authorities to give necessary aid for implementation or for enforcing the order of 6 temporary injunction. 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 can not be made unless the Court is fully convinced 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. ” 7. On the basis of this authority, he submitted that alternate modes are prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure for executing the injunction order apart from with the help of police aid. He submitted that police aid is to be regarded as an extreme step and as such it should not be recommended unless the Court is fully convinced of existence of grave emergency. He further submitted that in the present case, the trial Court 7 has not given any reason for allowing Exh. 27 i.e. police protection for implementing the injunction order in favour of Respondent no. 1. 8. It is to be noted that the Respondent No. 1 in his application below Exh. 27 dated 30/12/2008 specifically stated that on 29/12/2008, the petitioners and respondent no. 2 restrained him from cultivating the suit land and threatened for dare consequences. For an agriculturist, the period from November to January is important period for sowing Wheat in their field and during that period itself, if the petitioners obstructed Respondent no. 1’s cultivation in spite of injunction order, this can be considered as an extreme step on the part of the petitioners to disobey the injunction order passed by the Court. The petitioner threatened the Respondent no. 1 of physical violence in case the Respondent no. 1 entered the suit field. Then it was sowing season. The Respondent no. 1 could not postpone the sowing and the sowing was not possible if the petitioner carried out their threats. There was imminent danger to the life and liberty of the Respondent no. 1 and his servants in case they entered the field for sowing. To avoid the physical violence, it was necessary for the Respondent no. 1 to secure police protection, in the absence of which they could not sow the field. Therefore, the action of the Respondent no. 1, can not be blamed. It is necessary here to refer a Judgment in the matter of 8 Rayapati Audemma V/s Pothineni Narasimham reported in AIR 1971 A.P. - 53, in which the Andhra Pradesh High Court also held that in the interest of justice, Court can pass order for police protection to implement the injunction order. The head note ‘ A ’of the said Judgment reads as under : “ Civil P. C. (1998), Order 39, Rule 2 and Section 151 – Order granting temporary injunction – Implementation – There being no express provision in the Code for the purpose, Court can grant police aid under its inherent powers – Rule 2 (3) does not deal with implementation but with punishment for disobedience – Order can be implemented under Article 226 of Constitution. ” 9. Considering the facts of the present case that though the injunction order was passed long back restraining petitioners from interfering Respondent no. 1’s possession on the suit property, the petitioners obstructed Respondent no. 1 on 29/12/2008 from cultivating his land. As the main Suit is pending for hearing and final disposal, I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition. In view of above facts 9 and circumstances, Writ Petition is summarily dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. [ K.K. TATED ] JUDGE knp/WP1664.09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19