Koka Ramachandra Rao JUDGMENT
Koka Ramachandra Rao, J.
1. This revision has been referred to a Bench as it raises a short but important question of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of Bhima Sankaram, J., dated 22-7-1960 in C. R. P. No. 67 of 1959. But the learned counsel for the respondent. Sri N. Subba Reddy, contended that the said decision requires reconsideration. Accordingly by an order dated 7-3-1969, this revision has been referred to a Bench by one of us, K. Ramachandra Rao. J.
2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this case are as follows: - The respondent herein filled a suit O. S. No. 111 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Kandukur, for the reliefs among others of possession of a portion of a channel and for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondent's possession and enjoyment of the said channel and for moving the silt in the said channel. The petitioner filed a written statement contesting the suit. The respondent has file and application for a temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit.
The trial Court ordered the said application subject to the condition that anything done by the respondent in his and, should not infringe or cause damage to the lang owned by the petitioner. While the respondent was implementing the aforesaid order and digging trenches and removing the silt, the petitioner herein appears to have raised an objection to the method and manner of the implementation of the order of the trial Court. The respondent thereupon filed an application I. A. 600 of 1968 under Section 151, Civil P. C. praying that the lower Court might be pleased to grant aid in order to remove the silt in the channel and allow the excess rain water to flow through the said channel in view of the injunction orders granted in I. A. 493 of 1968 and in view of the obstruction said to have been caused by the petitioner to the removal of the silt. The lower Court passed a short order as follows:-
"the petitioner is permitted to remove the silt with police aid".
This revision has been preferred against the aforesaid order.
3. The main admission of Shri M. B., Rama Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under any of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or the rules made thereunder to grant police aid, particularly, with respect to the implementation of the orders of injunction made under O. 39, Civil P. C. Shri Subba Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent submits, that there being no specific provision in this behalf, the Civil Court has inherent powers under Section 151, Civil P. C. to direct police to render aid where the implementation of the orders of a Civil Court is obstructed or prevented.
4. When the case came on for final hearing before us on 23-6-69, we requested the Advocate-General to assist us in the case and he had kindly accepted to do so. The learned Advocate-General subsequently informed us that he could not get any direct authority or any specific rule or provision under which such a relief could be given, but that it is always open to the party to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 151, Civil P. C. for getting the said relief.
Section 151, Civil Procedure Code reads.
"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 prevent abuse of the process of the Court".
This section confers power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. It is now well established that S........