Judgment:
Naresh Chander Jain, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court granting police help to the respondents in whose favour the order of injunction was passed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it has been held in Subal Kumar Dey v. Puma Chandra Giri, A.I.R. 1989 Orissa 214, that police help could not be given in the cases in which injunction order has been passed. It has further been argued that the two judicial pronouncements relied upon by the trial court reported as Rayapati Audemma v. Pothineni Narasimham, A. I. R. 1971 Andhra Pradesh 53 and Sunil Kumar Haider v. Nishikanta Bhandari, A. I. R. 1983 Cal. 266, have also been discussed in Subal Kumar Dey's case (supra).
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the relevant case law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the view that there is no force in the revision petition. It has been held in Rayapati Audemma's case (supra) that the Court can grant police aid under its inherent power as there is no express provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure for this purpose. While interpreting the provisions of punishment in case of violation of injunction order, it has been ruled that the provisions relating to punishment only deal with punishment for disobedience and they do not deal with implementation of the injunction order of the Court. The direction of police help was upheld by the Division Bench in Rayapati Audemma's case (supra). In Sunil Kumar Haider's case (supra) it was specifically held that the Court can order police protection under the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') In Subal Kumar Dey's case (supra) the ratio laid down in the two judicial pronouncements, that is, one in Rayapati Audemma's case (supra) and the other in Sunil Kumar Haider's case (supra) has not been dissented or disapproved. The Court, on the other hand, was of the view that the grant of police help was a hasty action on the part of the Court In view thereof, it can be safely held by this Court that no ratio was laid down by the Orissa High Court The ratio laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Calcutta High Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. While following the ratio laid down by the Andhra Pradesh and the Calcutta High Courts, it can safely be held that whenever there is no provision made in the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing with a particular situation, inherent jurisdiction of the Court under the provisions of Section 151 of the Code can be availed of by a party for the redressal of its grievances. No provisions for implementation of the injunction order having been made by the provisions of the Code, police help can well be sought under Section 151 of the Code. The power to make orders inheres in the court power to implement the same and to achieve this, police help can well be granted under the inherent provisions of Section 151 of the Code The language of Section 151 of the Code clothes the Civil Courts wide powers to order police help to a person who is unable to implement the same on account of his weakness. Surely, the orders of the Court once passed are not intended to remain unimplemented simply because a particular person is weak. If the provisions of Section 151 of the Code are to be interpreted differently it would mean that a weak person cannot have the Court's orders implemented and this what precisely would not be the spirit of the law. No judicial pronouncement of this Court has been cited by either of the counsel.
4. In the view which I have taken above, this revision petition is devoid of any force and the same is consequently ordered to be dismissed. No costs.