- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29200 WP No. 13287 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 13287 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SIDDAPPA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O ANNEHAL VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA.D.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. (a) SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE VEDACHARI, DEAD BY LR'S., V.NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O THIPPESHAPPA, D/O LATE VEDACHARI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O NEAR PRABHU WOOD INDUSTRIES, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577 501. (b) V.NAGARAJ S/O LATE VEDACHARI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, (c) V.RENUKAMMA W/O JAGADEESHAPPA, D/O LATE VEDACHARI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29200 WP No. 13287 of 2021 R/O ARENAHALLI, VIA BHADRAVATHI ROAD, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST-577 213. (d) V.MALLESH S/O LATE VEDACHARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, THE RESPONDENTS 1(b) (d) ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/O ANNEHAL VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.G.KANTHARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 [A TO D]) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Shivananda, D.S., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.G.Kantharajappa, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 (A to D), appeared in person. 2. The order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.432/2018, vide Annexure-F is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29200 WP No. 13287 of 2021 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4 The short point that requires consideration is whether the order of the Trial Court requires interference. 5. Suffice it to note that the plaintiff has filed a suit seeking certain reliefs. After the service of the summons, the defendants filed the written statement. An application in I.A.No.1 was filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction. The defendants resisted the application. The Trial Court vide order dated 29.05.2019 allowed the application. Alleging interference, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.3 under Section 151 of CPC, seeking police protection. The defendants resisted the application. The Trial Court vide order dated 08.01.2020, rejected the application. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. The issue relates to police aid. The Code of Civil Procedure doesn't explicitly provide for police aid to enforce decrees or orders; Courts have the inherent power, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29200 WP No. 13287 of 2021 under Section 151 of the CPC, to grant such assistance when necessary to prevent abuse of the Court's process or to ensure the execution of orders. Police aid is not given routinely; it's an extreme step reserved for situations where there is a genuine need for such assistance, and a high degree of proof is required. The relevant factors to be considered, and the Courts must be convinced of an imminent need for police aid before granting it. The Court has no jurisdiction to grant police protection under Section 151 if there is an order of an injunction positively to protect the possession of the party to the lis. Moreover, when there is a specific provision under the Code, inherent powers cannot be invoked. The alleged violator may be dealt with according to the law. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Because of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted, if any, stands discharged, and the pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP/KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31