Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference with order refusing police aid — Ad-interim injunction in force — Standing crop likely to be destroyed — Trial Court failed to consider urgency and surrounding circumstances — Interference justified.
Held, where an ad-interim injunction restraining interference with possession is in force and the plaintiff demonstrates imminent risk of loss of standing crop, refusal to grant police aid without considering material circumstances amounts to improper exercise of discretion. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can be invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice. Paras 15 to 17, 20.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 151 — Inherent powers — Police aid to implement interim injunction — Maintainability — Whether police aid can be granted before disposal of injunction application — Depends on facts — In appropriate cases permissible.
Held, though ordinarily courts must exercise caution in granting police aid solely on the basis of an ad-interim order passed without hearing the opposite party, where the defendants have been given opportunity, have filed written statement and counter, and have not pleaded independent possession or interest over the property, grant of limited police aid to prevent destruction of crop is justified. Paras 16 and 17.
Civil Procedure — Temporary injunction — Enforcement — Police aid — Scope — Prejudice to opposite party — Determination.
Grant of police aid must be assessed on likelihood of prejudice. Where defendants have not claimed any specific right, title, possession or enjoyment over the suit schedule property in their pleadings, and where immediate refusal would result in loss to the plaintiff due to destruction of crop, enforcement of interim protection through police assistance does not cause prejudice to defendants. Paras 16 and 17.
Civil Procedure — Agricultural land — Standing crop — Court’s duty to prevent irreparable loss — Expedite disposal of injunction application.
When standing crop is ripe for harvest and delay would cause irreversible loss, the Trial Court ought to take cognizance of urgency and dispose of the main injunction application expeditiously instead of confining itself narrowly to the police aid petition. Paras 15 and 20.
Result — Revision allowed — Order dismissing police aid petition set aside — Police directed to assist for one week — Trial Court directed to dispose of injunction application expeditiously. Para 20.
────────────────────────────────────────
RATIO DECIDENDI
────────────────────────────────────────
The ratio of the decision is that while courts must ordinarily exercise restraint in granting police aid solely on the basis of an ad-interim injunction passed ex parte, such restraint is not absolute. Where the opposite party has subsequently entered appearance, filed pleadings, and has not asserted any independent right, title, possession, or claim over the disputed property, and where a standing crop is at risk of destruction causing irreparable loss, the court may, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, grant limited police assistance to enforce the subsisting interim order.
The determining factors are absence of demonstrable prejudice to the defendants, existence of an operative interim injunction, urgency arising from the nature of the crop, and likelihood of irreversible loss if protection is denied. In such circumstances, refusal to grant police aid amounts to improper exercise of discretion warranting interference.
