DATE: 12/12/2025
COURT: High Court of Orissa
BENCH: Justice Sashikant Mishra
FACTS:
The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in a
civil suit (C.S. No. 607 of 2021) filed before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division),
Bhadrak, sought partition and permanent injunction over suit property, claiming
a one-third share. He was in possession of a specific portion of the land based
on mutual arrangement among the parties, though no formal partition by metes
and bounds had occurred. The plaintiff began constructing a house on this
portion under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), for which financial assistance
had been sanctioned and released. However, at the stage of roof casting, the
defendants (opposite parties) raised objections, prevented further
construction, and threatened to demolish the half-constructed building,
prompting the plaintiff to seek an amicable settlement that failed, leading him
to file the suit.
In the suit, the plaintiff also filed an
interim application (I.A. No. 1 of 2022) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
CPC for a temporary injunction. The trial court, on May 11, 2022, allowed this
application, restraining the defendants from causing disturbances and
permitting the plaintiff to proceed with the construction, subject to certain
undertakings. Despite this order, on July 24, 2022, the defendants again
interfered. The plaintiff approached the Inspector-in-Charge (I.I.C.) of Tihidi
Police Station for protection, but assistance was refused due to lack of court
communication. Consequently, the plaintiff filed another application (CMA No.
179 of 2022) under Section 151 of the CPC seeking police assistance for
implementing the injunction order, which the trial court rejected on December
16, 2022. Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the High Court under Article 227
of the Constitution of India. Meanwhile, the defendants appealed the injunction
order (F.A.O. No. 48 of 2022) before the District Judge, Bhadrak.
ISSUES:
The primary issues in this case revolved
around whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application
for police assistance under Section 151 of the CPC to implement the interim
injunction order, particularly in light of the defendants' alleged violations;
whether remedies under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the CPC were sufficient to
address such violations without police aid; the relevance of pending appeals
against the injunction order and the absence of applications for local
inspection under Order XXXIX Rule 7; and the scope of the court's inherent
powers to direct police assistance for enforcing civil orders when standard
provisions prove inadequate.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The High Court allowed the petitioner's
application under Article 227, setting aside the trial court's rejection order
dated December 16, 2022. It directed the trial court to instruct the concerned
police authority (I.I.C. of Tihidi Police Station) to provide necessary
assistance to the plaintiff for constructing his house in accordance with the
interim injunction order dated May 11, 2022, in I.A. No. 1 of 2022.
The High Court reasoned that the trial
court's grounds for rejection were untenable. Firstly, the pendency of the
defendants' appeal (F.A.O. No. 48 of 2022) against the injunction order did not
automatically stay its operation, as per Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, which
states that an appeal does not act as a stay unless specifically ordered by the
appellate court. No such stay was mentioned or evidenced, rendering the
appeal's pendency irrelevant to the enforcement of the existing injunction.
Additionally, the trial court's reference to the plaintiff's failure to seek
local inspection under Order XXXIX Rule 7 was misplaced, as that provision
pertains to detention, preservation, or inspection of property, which was not
at issue here; the matter concerned enforcement of an active construction
permission amid disturbances, not property inspection. The court emphasized
that the injunction order was passed after satisfying the triple test of prima
facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, and included a
positive directive allowing construction, which would be rendered meaningless
without enforcement mechanisms.
Furthermore, while acknowledging that Order
XXXIX Rule 2-A provides for consequences like attachment of property or civil
detention for injunction breaches, the High Court held this remedy insufficient
in the circumstances, as it addresses post-violation punishment rather than
preventive implementation. Invoking the inherent powers under Section 151 of
the CPC, the court cited Supreme Court precedent in Meera Chauhan v. Harsh
Bishnoi (2007), which affirms that courts can direct police aid to implement
injunctions and restore parties' positions when violations occur. Similar views
from coordinate benches in cases like Gokula Naik v. Pitambar Naik (2022) and
Smt. Manoj Manjari Mohapatra v. Sri Kapila @ Kapilendra Mohapatra (2021)
reinforced that police assistance, though an extreme measure, is warranted when
situations demand it to ensure court orders are not reduced to dead letters. In
this case, the defendants' repeated interferences justified such intervention
to protect the plaintiff's rights and uphold judicial efficacy, preventing the
order from becoming ineffectual despite being favourable.
ANALYSIS:
The Orissa High Court's decision in Sayed
Ekram Saha v. Haroon Khan (CMP No. 140 of 2023, decided on December 12, 2025)
underscores the practical necessity of ensuring that interim injunction orders
in civil suits, particularly in family or co-ownership disputes, do not become
mere paper decrees. In this partition suit involving joint property where the
plaintiff was constructing a PMAY-sanctioned house on his possessed portion,
the trial court's initial injunction restrained disturbances and positively
permitted construction after satisfying the prima facie case, balance of
convenience, and irreparable injury test. However, repeated violations by
defendants highlighted a common issue in rural property disputes: powerful
co-sharers obstructing weaker parties, rendering court orders ineffective
without enforcement support. By setting aside the trial court's refusal to
grant police assistance, the High Court affirmed that civil courts cannot
remain passive when their directives are flouted, emphasizing the duty to make
orders fruitful for the beneficiary.
This ruling strengthens the jurisprudential
position on inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, clarifying that while police
aid is an "extreme step" not to be granted routinely, it is
justifiable when standard remedies like Order XXXIX Rule 2-A (punitive measures
such as attachment or detention) are inadequate for preventive enforcement. The
court's rejection of irrelevant grounds such as the pendency of an appeal
(which does not automatically stay the injunction per Order XLI Rule 5) or
non-application for local inspection under Rule 7, reinforces procedural
fairness and prevents technical denials. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Meera
Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi (2007) and coordinate bench decisions, the judgment
balances judicial restraint with proactive intervention, ensuring access to
justice in cases where threats or obstructions persist, and sets a precedent
for lower courts to prioritize implementation over formalism in similar
property disputes.
info@adhwaitha.com