C DODDASIDDAIAH Vs. D SIDDAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the civil courts are within their powers in giving police assistance to implement the interlocutory orders of the court. The facts in brief which are relevant for the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions are: an ad interim order of injunction has been granted by the trial court restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiffs' right to enjoy their 1/3rd share in using the water of the well situated in the suit schedule land. This order had in fact been passed by the vacation judge, tumkur, further directing transmission of the records to the jurisdictional court. Thereafter, the defendants entered appearance through their Advocate and filed their written statement are objections to la. I and also filed an application under order 39, Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code praying to vacate the ex parts order of temporary injunction. Before the interlocutory applications were heard, the plaintiffs has tend to file another application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code requesting the court to issue a direction to the p. s. i. , pattanayakanahalli to implement the order passed by the court. The learned munsiff has readily obliged the plaintiffs and directed the p. s. i. , pattanayakanahalli to implement the temporary injunction order passed by the vacation court and to take legal action against them in the event of disobedience. The legality of the order and jurisdiction of the court below in passing such an order is questioned in this revision.

(2.) SRI shekar shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court is not right in directing the police to implement the ad interim order of temporary injunction as the aggrieved person can have recourse to the Provisions of order 39, Rule 2-a of Civil Procedure Code to initiate contempt against the defendants who commit disobedience of the order. He finds support to this proposition from the decision rendered by the Hon'ble govinda bhat, c. J. (as he then was) in the case in narasimhappa v hanumanthappa. the proposition laid down in the said case is as follows:

(3.) HOWEVER, there is a short deviation from this view in the latest decision of this court rendered by my learned brother Justice p. Krishnamoorthy in papanna v nagachari, wherein he has held as follows: