THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.24018 of 2009 ORDER: Because of the civil disputes between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents, the petitioners filed O.S.No.58 of 2009 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg, seeking permanent injunction and along with the suit, they also filed I.A.No.221 of 2009 seeking temporary injunction. The Court below was pleased to pass an order of temporary injunction. Even though the said order is in force, the unofficial respondents are interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners again approached the said Court and filed I.A.No.235 of 2009 seeking police protection. The said application was also ordered by the Court below on 7.09.2009 and directed the police to provide required protection to the petitioners. However, as the said order is not implemented, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that whenever there is an order of a competent civil Court directing the police officials to provide required police protection, the police are duty bound to do the needful. The Supreme Court in SATYANARAYANA TIWARI v. S.H.O., P.S.SANTHOSHNAGAR, HYDERABAD[1] held as follows: “Mr. Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 vehemently contended that a temporary injunction order issued by this Court is not capable of implementation and the only remedy of the person in whose favour there is a temporary injunction order and who complains of its contravention is to move the Court for taking proceedings in contempt against the persons who are contravening the injunction. We cannot envisage a situation where the High Court, which has confirmed the injunction order issued by the trial Court, is, powerless to enforce its orders and be a silent spectator to its being violated with impunity and leave the parties to seek their remedy by way of contempt alone. This very question was raised and answered against Mr.Jagannadha Rao’s contention by an earlier Division Bench of this Court in R.Audemma v. P.Narasimham, AIR 1971 AP 53. Our learned brother Ramachandra Rao, J. while referring to the unreported judgment of a single Judge of this Court in C.R.P.No.67 of 1959 dated 22.07.1960 which held that an order of injunction is capable of enforcement only by punishing its disobedience in the manner provided by Order 39, Rule 2(3) CPC and that it is not open to the Civil Courts to enforce the same with the aid of the police, held: “Order 39 Rule 2(3) provides only for punishment by attachment of the property or by detention in civil prison of the person who committed breach. But it does not further provide for implementation of the order of injunction itself. Order 39, Rule 2(3) cannot be said to be an express provision with respect to implementation of the order of injunction, but is only a provision, which provides penalty for disobedience of the order. In such a case there being no other express provision in the Code for enforcement of the order, it is not only proper but also necessary that the Courts should render all aid to the aggrieved party to derive full benefits of the order. Though an order of injunction under Order 39 CPC is only interim in nature, still it clothes the person who obtained order with certain rights and he is entitled to enforce the aforesaid right against the party who is bound by the order. No doubt in such a case, the aggrieved party himself could approach the police authorities to prevent obstruction to the enforcement of the order or to the exercise of the right which he derives under the order of the Court. But we do not see why when the same person brings to the notice of Court that enforcement of the order is sought to be prevented or obstructed, the Court should not exercise its inherent power under Section 151 CPC and direct the police authorities to render all aid to the aggrieved party in the implementation of the Court’s order. In our opinion, the exercise of such power is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process and the Civil Court has ample jurisdiction to pass such orders under Section 151 CPC.” The Court further held that the police are bound to obey such directions. We find ourselves in full agreement with the view expressed above. It is the duty of all the authorities in the State to see that the orders of the civil Court and that of the High Court are not only enforced faithfully but all persons seeking enforcement of such orders are given full help and protection in furtherance thereof.” Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the official respondents are hereby directed to implement the order, dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Court below in I.A.No.235 of 2009 in O.S.No.58 of 2009. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 9th NOVEMBER, 2009. kvni [1] AIR 1982 AP 394