ANUSUYAMMA Vs. K.D.RUDRESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge, JMFC, Channagiri dated 17.02.2020 in O.S.No.127/2019 passed on I.A.No.3 filed under Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking for the police protection for the implementation of the order passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C where under the trial Court after perusing the material on record came to a prima- facie conclusion that the petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule property had granted an order of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

(2.) It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the trial Court had come to a prima-facie conclusion that the petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule property, however, the trial Court restrained itself from coming to the aid of the petitioners by ordering for police protection and keeping the application in abeyance on the ground that the actual possession of the petitioners has to be established during the course of the trial.

(3.) Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Papanna Vs. Nagachari reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1271 more particularly at para No.8 thereof would contend that once a trial Court has passed an order of injunction, it is a bounden duty on part of the trial Court to implement the said order which in this case can only be done by a direction being issued to the police authorities. She further submits that the trial Court ought not to have kept the said application under abeyance which would in effect result in negativing the order passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and or make such an order of injunction a paper order, without teeth.