POLAVARAPU NAGAMANI Vs. PARCHURI KOTESHWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Introduction These two miscellaneous appeals are being disposed of by this common order as they arise between the same parties out of two separate interlocutor}' orders in the same suit. The appellants are plaintiffs and respondents are defendants. They are referred to as such In this order.

(2.) Be it noted that initially this Court suspended the order in J A No.412 of 2009 where under the Court below directed police protection to defendants. Then they moved an application to vacate the interim suspension. At that stage itself, with the consent of the Counsel for both the sides, the matter is heard finally,

(3.) These two appeals involve an important question with regard to power of civil Court to direct the police to give police protection to plaintiffs or defendants to safeguard the subject property in the suit pending adjudication. What arc the remedies available to a party when an order of injunction is violated or there is a threat of such violation? When a party to the suit alleges violation of an order of ad interim injunction granted by civil Court, what is the standard of proof required for the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 154 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and direct the police to give protection to safeguard the property and whether the Court can ignore the specific provisions contained in CPC and exercise powers under Section 151 of CPC. These and others are the questions that arise for consideration. Before taking up these issues, the background facts may be noticed as summarized in the ensuing paragraphs. Brief fads of the case