- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 103685 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: JINNAPPA BHIMAPPA BABANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1. SMT. SUMITRA W/O. JINNAPPA BABANNAVAR, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: H. H. WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKOD, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591329. 2. SMT. AKKATAI W/O. RAVASAB PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: H. H. WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKOD, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591329. 3. SMT. ANITA W/O. AJIT KAMGOUDA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: H. H. WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAVATAKOPPA, TAL: ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. BHARATI W/O. CHANDRAKANT MAGADUM, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: H. H. WORK, R/O. TERDAL, TAL: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 5. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. BHUJABALI BELAGALI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: H. H. WORK, R/O. AIGALI, TAL. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. SMT. JAYASHREE W/O. SHEETAL NAGANUR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: H. H. WORK, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 R/O. MUGALKOD, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591329. 7. SIDDAPPA S/O. JINNAPPA BABANNAVAR, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKOD, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591329. 8. BHIMAPPA S/O. JINNAPPA BABANNAVAR AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKOD, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591329. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P. P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHADEV S/O. LAXMAN TURAI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RABAKAVI, TAL: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 2. MADHUSUDHAN S/O. KAREPPA BILAGI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGALKOD, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591329. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH BIRANGI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI. ABHISHEK BARIGIDAD, ADV. FOR SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2022 ON IA PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE RAIBAG IN O.S.NO.314/19 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the order dated 11-08-2022 on ia passed by the additional civil judge, raibag in o.s.no.314/19 produced at annexure-g, in the interest of justice and equity. b) Grant such other relief as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Sri P.P.Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the children of original plaintiff who filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, the application filed by the petitioners for temporary injunction was considered after hearing the defendants and temporary injunction was granted on 05.01.2021. It is further submitted that the defendants assailed the order of temporary injunction before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.1/2021 and M.A.No.2/2021 and the Appellate Court - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 dismissed the appeals. It is also contended that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants highhandedly tried to dispossess the petitioners from the enjoyment of the suit schedule property with the help of goondas and immediately the petitioners approached the jurisdictional police requesting them to provide police protection as per the temporary injunction order of the trial Court. However, the jurisdictional police refused to entertain the request on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. It is also contended that the petitioners have no other option to file an application before the same Court seeking police protection to safeguard their possession. Howe’ver, the trial Court under the impugned order recorded an incorrect finding that the defendants have produced sugar supply bills which are in the name of the defendants. Hence, they are in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that once the same Court after examining the material placed before it, recorded clear finding with regard to the title and possession of the plaintiff cannot record a finding that the possession of the plaintiffs is doubtful based on only sugarcane supply slips produced by the defendants. It is further submitted that if the police protection is not provided, the defendants with the help of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 their supporters will dispossess the petitioners and regularly obstruct the plaintiffs from enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sri Balakrishna K.P. and another v. Sri K.P.Puttaraju and others, W.P. No.51712/2019 (GM-CPC) disposed off on 07.07.2025 and seeks to allow the application of police protection. 3. Per contra, Sri. Santosh Birangi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Abhishek Barigidad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 support the impugned order of the trial Court and submit that the trial Court while considering the application for temporary injunction has not stated with regard to the possession and the defendants have placed sufficient material before the trial Court while considering the application for police protection and shown that the defendants are in possession as they have supplied sugarcane as is evident from the bills produced before the Court. Hence, they seek to sustain the impugned order of the trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 4. I have heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsels appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and meticulously perused the material on record. 5. The material on record indicates that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, who filed O.S.No.314/2019 for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short). The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court, vide order dated 05.01.2021 by directing the defendants and any person claiming under them from causing any type of obstruction or disturbance to the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e. suit strip measuring 7 acres 22 quntas out of R.Sy.No.187/1B and strip of 18 guntas out of R.Sy.No.186/1, both situated at Mugalkhod Village till the disposal of the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 6. The perusal of the order dated 05.01.2021 indicate that the trial Court has recorded a clear finding with regard to the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case to grant an order of temporary injunction. The said finding is based on the title document and other materials placed by the plaintiffs, as can be seen from the para 14 to 16 of the order, it is to be noticed that the order granting temporary injunction was assailed by the defendants in M.A.No.1/2021 and M.A.No.2/2021 before the Senior Civil and J.M.F.C., Raibag. The appeals filed by the defendants are dismissed by a separate order, both dated 04.12.2023 affirming the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to the possession and title. It is not in dispute that the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court has attained finality with regard to the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking relief of police protection at the hands of P.S.I., Harugeri to safeguard the possession over the suit schedule property. The perusal of the affidavit accompanying the application indicate that the plaintiffs have approached the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 Jurisdiction Police, indicating that the defendants are disturbing their lawful possession high handedly with the help of goondas and also obstructing the enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The affidavit indicates that the police have refused to entertain the request for police protection solely on the ground that the disputes are of the civil nature. Though the defendants raised the objections to the said application, it can be seen from the objections filed by the defendants that the defendants are asserting that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and to support the said contention, they have produced some slips for having sold the sugarcane to the sugar factory. The trial Court accepted the same and rejected the application. In my considered view, the trial Court has committed a grave error in coming to such a conclusion based on the sugarcane slips produced by the defendants. The trial Court while rejecting the application has recorded the finding with regard to the possession based on such sugarcane slips. In my considered view, such an attempt of the trial Court with recording the finding based on such slips would run contrary to the finding recorded by the same court while considering the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court while dismissing the appeals filed by the defendants. Hence, the application filed by the petitioners is required to be allowed. 7. This court in the case of Sri Balakrishna K.P. referred supra, taking note of the initiation of law on the subject, has held as under : “11. After examining the case law on point, I am of the view that the consideration of the application filed for police protection before the trial Court shall be based on various factors like: a) The nature of temporary injunction order passed by the trial Court. b) The nature of police protection sought. c) The trial Court shall consider the effect of granting and non-granting of police protection. d) The trial Court shall satisfy itself that prima facie case is made out for grant of police protection based on the pleading and material on record. e) The trial Court shall record the reasons while granting the police protection against the defendants as to whether the defendants are consistently violating the temporary injunction - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 order with impunity and there is need for police protection or aid. f) The trial Court shall also take note of the fact that whether the temporary injunction order granted has attained finality and the application needs consideration even during the pendency of the appeal against the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court by recording the reasons for such urgency or otherwise. g) The trial Court cannot order police protection mechanically. Each case has to be dealt based on the pleading, material on record and the nature of protection sought and nature of temporary injunction granted. Unless the trial Court satisfies itself that there is an imminent need for police aid/police help, it cannot order for police protection on mere request. h) The exercise of power by the trial Court to consider the application for police protection is an inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of CPC. The trial Court may pass such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. i) There is no impediment for the trial Court to consider the application for police aid - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 or protection merely because there is a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. The trial Court shall keep in mind the aforesaid factors and also consider other relevant material and factors while passing an order on the application for police protection or aid. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi and Another5 reiterating the law laid down by it in the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal6 referred supra at paragraph Nos.14 to 18 has held with regard to scope of Section 151 of CPC as under: "14. Before we deal with this question of possession as to who was in actual possession at the relevant point of time it would be appropriate to note that the order for restoration was passed by the trial court on an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A question may arise whether such an application can be entertained by the court when specific provision under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made for grant of injunction in the form of mandatory order in the exercise of power under the said order. Therefore to decide this aspect of the matter, let us consider the scope of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 151 reads as under: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 “151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.— Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.” 15. On a bare perusal of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said to be in dispute that Section 151 confers wide powers on the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 16. The power of Section 151 to pass order of injunction in the form of restoration of possession of the code is not res integra now. 17. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal [AIR 1962 SC 527 : 1963 All LJ 169] while dealing with the power of the court to pass orders for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, this Court held that the courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary order of injunction in the circumstances which are not covered under the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it was held by this Court - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 in the aforesaid decision that the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure. 18. At the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order." 8. Keeping in mind the observations in the aforesaid decision and taking note of the apprehensions expressed by the plaintiffs in the affidavit and also keeping in mind that the order of injunction has attained finality, I am of the view that the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12714 WP No. 103685 of 2022 ii. The impugned order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.314/2019 is set aside. Consequently, I.A. filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for police protection is allowed. iii. The Jurisdiction Police that is Police Sub- Inspector, Harugeri Police Station is directed to provide police aid whenever the petitioners seek by pointing out that the respondents/defendants are trying to dispossess or acting in violation of the temporary injunction order granted by the trial Court iv. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1