1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4638 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. R.N. Gite for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 28th June 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 7 May 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nasik granting police protection to the respondents. An injunction order has already been passed against the petitioner restraining him from disturbing the possession of the respondents. The respondents have alleged that despite injunction, 2 the petitioner is disturbing their possession and, therefore, they prayed for the police protection for fencing their property. The Court granted the application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no specific provision under the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) enabling the Court to grant police protection and, therefore, the order under section 151 of the Code could not have been passed. Counsel further submitted that if the respondents are dispossessed, their remedy lies under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code and since an alternative remedy is available to the respondents, power under section 151 of the Code cannot be exercised. In support, relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527. Remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code is not an alternative remedy. In case of breach of an order 3 of an injunction, the person can apply under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code so as to punish the defendant. Application under section 151 of the Code in the present case is to protect the property. Here, the respondents want police protection to erect fencing so as to ensure that breach is not committed. The decision cited does not apply to the facts of the present case. 4. No other point was raised. 5. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)