Section 151 CPC | Petition Seeking Possession Protection Over Property Cannot Be Filed Without Resorting To Execution Of A Decree In Suit: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that a petition seeking protection of possession over property cannot be filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) without first resorting to the execution of a decree in a suit.
The Court allowed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the order passed by the Trial Court, whereby the officers of the Chitageri Police Station were directed to give protection to the Defendant’s possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property.
Justice S.G. Pandit observed, “Without resorting to execution of decree passed in O.S.No.120/1990 and based on decree passed in O.S.No.120/1990, the respondent/defendant could not have filed petition under Section 151 of CPC, seeking police help to protect his possession over the suit schedule property. If in the present suit, the respondent/defendant had obtained interim order or interim order was in his favour, then he could have sought for police protection to implement the said interim order of injunction. The observation of the trial Court that when there is order of perpetual injunction with respect to suit schedule property, protection of the said property is required, cannot be disputed. But the said protection or enforcement of decree is to be initiated by respondent/defendant under separate proceedings or based on the said decree for perpetual injunction, the respondent/defendant could have prayed for grant of injunction in his favour in the present suit”.
Advocate Yadunandan N appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Mahesh R Uppin appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner approached the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order passed by the Trial Court, whereby the officers of the Chitageri Police Station were directed to give protection to the Defendant’s possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property.
The Court noted that the suit was for possession of the suit schedule property and there was no interim order whatsoever, either in favor of the Petitioners or Respondents. The Court observed that the Respondent’s suit was decreed and a permanent injunction was granted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Sri. H. Dyamanagouda v Patil Eshwara Gowda (2023:KHC:36114)
