J. Rajagopalan Vs Uma Maheswari

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.@mdashThis Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order allowing the application filed u/s 151 CPC praying for police protection to break open the lock at KRM Estate office and hostel and also to recover the car belonging to the trust from the petitioner herein so as to enable the respondent herein to function as the Managing Trustee. The short facts that are necessary for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

In respect of subject matter trust called Kottur Rangasamy Mudaliar Trust (KRM Trust), a scheme decree was passed by the Scheme Court, namely, the District Court, Tanjore on 06.12.1916. Thereafter the scheme decree was modified by a Division Bench of this Court and as per the modified scheme, the parties were given liberty to apply to the District Court, Tanjore in future for further directions. Accordingly the respondent herein filed I.A. No. 46/2011 in O.S. Nos. 1 and 3 of 1907 on the file of the District Court, Tanjore to recognize herself as Chairman Trustee of the Trust for a period of three years as per the earlier agreement entered into among the Trustees. He claimed the Chairman Trusteeship for the period commencing from 05.01.2011 to 05.01.2014. It is the case of the respondent that such appointment to the post of Chairman Trustee is being made once in three years by rotation among the existing trustees as per the agreement entered into between them. The said application was allowed by the District Court, Tanjore on 20.06.2011. The petitioner herein challenged the said order before this Court in C.R.P. No. 2841 of 2011 by an order dated 23.02.2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition by holding that the petitioner herein having acted as Chairman Trustee from 05.01.2008 to 05.01.2011 in terms of the agreement, cannot turn around and say that the Court has got no power to appoint the Chairman Trustee. It is also specifically found by the learned Judge that there was no variation of decree. Aggrieved against the said order made in C.R.P. No. 2841 of 2011 dated 23.02.2012, the petitioner herein filed an SLP before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and it is stated that no stay has been granted by the Apex Court in the said matter. However the said SLP is said to be pending as on date. When the said order passed in I.A. No. 46/2011 was not obeyed by the petitioner herein, an application was filed by the respondent herein in I.A. No. 54/2012 u/s 151 CPC seeking for the police aid as stated supra. The Court below allowed the said application by its order dated 18.07.2012. Thus aggrieved against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that police protection cannot be granted u/s 151 CPC directly by the Court without resorting to file an execution petition to execute of the order passed in I.A. No. 46 of 2011. Thus according to the learned counsel no order u/s 151 CPC to provide police protection can be granted by the Court for implementing the order passed in I.A. No. 46/2011 in the absence of any execution petition. He relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge reported in A. Diravidamani Vs. Chitradevi, Annai Saradha Mani Primary School and Sri Ramakrishna Matriculation H.S. School

3. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Mr. Parthasarathy appearing for the respondent submitted that an order made in I.A. No. 46/2011 was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 2841/2011. Though SLP was filed against the said order, the Apex Court has not granted any stay. Therefore in order to implement the order passed in I.A. No. 46/2011, the respondent rightly sought for police protection by filing an application u/s 151 CPC. The Court is empowered to issue such direction u/s 151 CPC. There is no necessity for filing any execution petition to execute the order made in I.A. No. 46/2011. It is only the enforcement of the order which is interlocutory in nature was sought for and therefore no E.P. is required to be filed. The decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reported in A. Diravidamani Vs. Chitradevi, Annai Saradha Mani Primary School and Sri Ramakrishna Matriculation H.S. School is factually distinguishable as it has arisen out of a decree granted for permanent injunction.

4. The learned senior counsel in support of his submission with regard to the power of the Court u/s 151 CPC, relied on the following decisions:

1. Sri-la-Sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami Vs. Sri-la-Sri Arunachalasamy Chidambaram and Another,

2. Kudiyan and 5 others Vs. B. Ranganathan

3. Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. S. Suppiah and Others,

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The point for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the Court is empowered to order police aid or protection u/s 151 CPC to enforce the order passed in I.A. No. 46/2011, whereby the respondent herein was permitted to function as Managing Trustee of the subject matter Trust for a period of three years commencing from 05.01.2011 to 05.01.2014.

7. Admittedly a Scheme decree was passed on 06.12.1916. Thereafter, parties have made several appeals for modification of the Scheme decree and it is also not disputed that such decree was modified by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court and as per such modification, liberty was given to the parties to apply to the District Court for further direction in future.

8. It is also seen that the petitioner herein also filed I.A. No. 7/1998 before the Scheme Court to enquire into the commission and omission and to pass such orders and give such directions as are proper and necessary for better administration of the Trust Estate. When the Scheme Court dismissed the said application the present petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in C.R.P. No. 3723/2000. After elaborately discussing various aspects of the matter, the learned Single Judge, disposed of the above Civil Revision Petition by making certain observations and directions. At paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 of the said order, the learned Judge has observed that if the trustees are agreeable to take the Chairman Trusteeship in turn, it is open to the District Judge to accept that arrangement. Accordingly the learned Judge directed the District Judge to call for the meeting of the Board of Trustees to elect the Chairman Trusteeship by further observing that it is open to the Chairman to agree to be the Chairman Trusteeship in turn or they may elect the Chairman Trustee. It is thus contended that in pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the above said Civil Revision Petition as stated supra, four trustees entered into an agreement through which they agreed that each trustee shall be the Chairman Trustee for a period of three years by rotation. The said proposal submitted to the District Court was also approved by the learned District Judge. Accordingly, it is stated that the rotation of Chairman Trusteeship commenced from 05.01.2002 for every three years and as per the said arrangement the petitioner herein also acted as Chairman and Managing Trustee from 05.01.2008 to 05.01.2011. Thus it is contended that after his tenure, the respondent has to function as the Chairman Trustee commencing from 05.01.2011 to 05.01.2014.

9. It is the case of the respondent that after having enjoyed the tenure as Chairman Trustee for three years from 05.01.2008 to 05.01.2011 as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner herein has not permitted the respondent to function as Chairman Trustee from 05.01.2011 for three years. Thus it necessitated her to file the said application in I.A. No. 46/2011. When that application was allowed the petitioner herein challenged the same before this Court in C.R.P. No. 2841 of 2011. In the said order the learned Judge has observed that the petitioner herein is not entitled to deny the power of the Court to appoint the respondent herein as Chairman Trustee having enjoyed the said post for three years as per the terms of the agreement entered into between four trustees. It is also observed by the learned Judge that there is no variation of the decree and it is within the clause provided in the Scheme and therefore the petitioner is estopped from questioning the same. No doubt the said order of the learned Single Judge is challenged before the Apex Court and an SLP is said to be pending without there being any interim order of stay. Thus as on date there is no impediment for giving effect to the said order made in I.A. No. 46/2011.

10. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner herein has disobeyed the order made in I.A. No. 46/2011 by not entrusting the trust office keys, passbooks, car to the respondent. Therefore she sought for police aid and protection for break open of the lock of the trust office so as to enable her to function as the Managing Trustee as per the order made in I.A. No. 46/2011. The Court below allowed the application by observing that there was no stay obtained by the petitioner herein against the order passed in I.A. No. 46/2011.

11. The only contention raised in this Civil Revision Petition by the petitioner is that such order cannot be passed directly by the Court without there being any execution petition filed by the respondent to execute the order passed in I.A. No. 46/2011. Thus it has to be seen as to whether filing of an execution petition to implement the order passed in I.A. No. 46/2011 is necessary or not. A perusal of the order passed in I.A. No. 46/2011 would show that the respondent herein sought for a direction from the Court u/s 151 CPC for permitting her to act as Managing Trustee on rotation basis commencing from 05.01.2011 for a period of three years. The District Court passed an order on 20.06.2011 whereby permitting the respondent herein to act as Managing Trustee for a period of three years by allowing the application. From the relief sought for in the said application and the order passed by the Court below, it is crystal clear that the said order is an interlocutory order passed in pursuant to the Scheme decree wherein the Court has recognised the right of the respondent as Managing Trustee for a period of three years commencing from 05.01.2011. Only to enforce such right recognised by the Court, the respondent sought for police protection u/s 151 CPC. It is only an implementation or enforcement of the order recognising the right of the respondent as Managing Trustee. Such enforcement or implementation of an interlocutory order need not necessarily be done through execution petition only, especially under the circumstances that such interlocutory order is purely passed as a temporary measure for a limited period of three years only. When such recognition of the right of a party is disputed or prevented to be exercised, then such implementation or enforcement of the order can be resorted to through police aid by filing an application u/s 151 CPC before the Court which granted the order. It is not necessary for the party to put the said order in execution proceedings. Though certain orders are in the nature of a decree, yet if it is interlocutory in nature, then the Courts have got power to pass appropriate consequential order u/s 151 CPC to implement or enforce those orders. A decree passed as final adjudication in a suit is not at par with an interlocutory order passed by the very same Court during the pendency of the suit. Therefore such order passed as an interlocutory measure can be enforced or implemented without resorting to execution proceedings, by seeking police aid u/s 151 CPC. At this juncture it is useful to refer to the decision of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court reported Sri-la-Sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami Vs. Sri-la-Sri Arunachalasamy Chidambaram and Another, , wherein the Hon''ble Division Bench has considered the scope of Section 151 CPC for the Courts to order police authorities to extend their aid and assistance. It was observed at paragraph Nos. 21 to 23 as follows:

21. The position of law which emerges from the principles laid down by the decisions referred to above is this; Section 151 of the CPC confers power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of court. Every court is constituted for the purpose of doing justice according to law and must be deemed to possess, as a necessary corollary, and as inherent in its very constitution, all such powers as may be necessary to do the right and to undo the wrong in the course of the administration of justice. As pointed out by the Apex Court of the land in The Newabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, the inherent power of the court has its roots in necessity and its breath is coextensive with the necessity. Section 151 does not confer any powers, but only indicates that there is a power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of court. As observed by the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, the inherent power has not been conferred on the court; it is a power inherent in the court by virtue of its duty to do justice between the parties before it. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Padam Sen and Another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the inherent powers of the court are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on the court by the Code. They are complementary to those powers and therefore, it must be held that the court is free to exercise them for the purpose mentioned in Section 151 of the Code, when the exercise of those powers is not in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the Legislature. The language of Section 151 of the Code is wide enough to clothe the civil courts with inherent powers to do the right and undo the wrong in the course of administration of justice.

22. We must bear in mind that when an order of temporary injunction is granted by the court under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code or when a decree for permanent injunction is passed by the civil court, it involves the following three stages:

The first stage is the issue of an order of temporary injunction or passing of a decree for permanent injunction. When a petition under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code is filed by a party, the court being satisfied that the conditions prescribed under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code are satisfied, may issue an order of temporary injunction in favour of the party, who has applied for the same. Similarly, the court after full trial of a suit and upon the merits of the case, may pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of a party. There is specific provision in the Code namely Order 39, Rule 1 dealing with the grant of the order of temporary injunction. Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act deals with the circumstances under which a decree for perpetual injunction can be passed by the courts.

The second stage is the implementation of the order of temporary injunction or decree granting perpetual injunction. There is no specific provision under the Code dealing with the implementation of the order of temporary injunction or a decree for perpetual injunction.

The third stage is the punishment for disobedience of the order of injunction. Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code deals with the consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction or other orders made under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code. Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code says that where a party against whom a decree for injunction has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree but has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree for injunction may be enforced by his detention in civil prison or by the attachment of his property or by both. Thus, the Code contains specific provision with regard to the grant of an order of temporary injunction and for punishing the party who disobeys the order of temporary injunction and the decree for perpetual injunction. However, there is no provision in the Code providing for the implementation of the order of temporary injunction or decree for perpetual injunction granted by the courts. When there is no specific provision of law which is sufficient to implement the order of temporary injunction or the decree for perpetual injunction granted by the court, we do not see why the provisions of Section 151 of the Code cannot be invoked for the said purpose to render justice or to redress the wrong, because, the courts should not only have the power to pass an order, but also should have the power to implement the said order. Therefore, when a party has obtained an order of temporary injunction from a court under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code and the other party against whom the order of injunction is passed disobeys the same, the aggrieved party can certainly approach the court invoking the power of the court u/s 151 and pray for police aid for the enforcement of the order of temporary injunction. When it is brought to the notice of the court that the enforcement of the order of temporary injunction is sought to be prevented or obstructed, the court in exercise of the inherent powers u/s 151, can direct the police authorities to render all aid to the aggrieved party in the enforcement of the order of the injunction granted by the court in order to render complete justice. It must be remembered, by ordering police help to the party who has obtained an order of temporary injunction, the court merely takes the follow-up steps to implement its earlier order of injunction. In appropriate cases, where the court finds that a party who had secured an order of injunction from the court is not in a position to have its full benefit owing either to obstruction or non-co-operation of the other side, it is always open to the court to direct the police authorities to see that its order is obeyed. As observed by the Full Bench of this Court in Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. Suppiah (1975)2 M.L.J. 54, when there is a violation of an order of injunction granted by the civil court, or when something has been, done in disobedience of such an order of injunction, it is the duty of the court as a matter of judicial Policy to undo the wrong done in disobedience of the court''s order and the power to enforce the order of injunction by ordering police aid is available u/s 151 of the Code.

23. In view of the above position of law, it has to be held that in appropriate cases, directions u/s 151 of the CPC can be issued by the civil courts to the police authorities to extend their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders or to render aid to aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the order of temporary injunction or a decree for permanent injunction granted by civil courts.

12. From the perusal of the above decision of the Hon''ble Division Bench it is seen that for the purpose of implementation of order of temporary injunction the Court in exercise of the inherent power u/s 151 CPC can direct the police authorities to render all aid to the aggrieved parties in enforcement of the order of injunction ordered by the Court in order to rendering complete justice. It is also observed that by ordering police help, the Court merely takes follow up to implement its earlier order of injunction. Here also the respondent had obtained an order which is interlocutory in nature to function as the Chairman Trustee for three years commencing from 05.01.2011 to 05.01.2014. When such interlocutory order is sought to be prevented or obstructed to be implemented or enforced, certainly the Court has got power u/s 151 CPC to order police protection. Thus I am of the firm view that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench reported in Sri-la-Sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami Vs. Sri-la-Sri Arunachalasamy Chidambaram and Another,

13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent also relied on Kudiyan and 5 others Vs. B. Ranganathan wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as follows:

By ordering police help the Court below had merely taken the follow up steps to implement its earlier order of injunction. The objection that a direction of that nature cannot be issued to the police authorities, who are not parties to the proceedings, raised by the petitioners has no substance. When the Court finds that a litigant, who had obtained an order from it, is not in a position to have its full benefit owing to either the obstruction or non-cooperation of the other party to the proceedings, it is always open to the Court to resort to the law enforcement machinery to see that its order is obeyed and I do not see anything illegal or irregular about it. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.

14. A Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. S. Suppiah and Others, is also relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent at paragraph No. 8 which is observed as follows:

8. In our opinion, the inherent powers of this court u/s 151 C.P.C. are wide and are not subject to any limitation. Where in violation of a stay order or injunction against a party, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. In our view, the inherent power will not only be available in such a case, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interests of justice. Even apart from Section 151, we should, observe that, as a matter of judicial policy, the court should guard against itself being satisfied in circumstances like this by holding that it is powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the court''s orders.

15. The above said decision of the Full Bench of this Court would make things clear by its categorical observation that it will be the duty of the Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing.

16. No doubt the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge reported in A. Diravidamani Vs. Chitradevi, Annai Saradha Mani Primary School and Sri Ramakrishna Matriculation H.S. School A perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case would show that it is in respect of a decree for injunction granted in the main suit. Therefore the learned Judge has observed that even for executing the decree for permanent injunction the execution proceedings as provided under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC is available and therefore without resorting to such execution proceedings one cannot straight away seek for police aid u/s 151 CPC. Needless to say that those facts are not one and the same with the facts on hand. Thus the said decision being factually distinguishable one, cannot be applied to the case.

17. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the order passed by the Court below in granting police aid does not warrant any interference and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.