J. V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Rohtak dated 18th Nov., 1988 whereby the request of the plaintiff-petitioner for the police help was declined.
(2.) The plaintiff petitioner Mohan Spinning Mills filed a suit on 3rd June, 1988. Along with the suit, they also moved an application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code). Vide order dated 12 h Sept., 1988, the trial Court restrained the defendants from causing any damage to the machinery and property of the plaintiff Mills by resorting to illegal and unjustified activities such as blocking gate and forcibly collecting money in the garb of subscription on the gate of the factory premises within a radious of 200 metres from the main gate of the Mills, till the decision of the main case. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff moved an application for the grant of the police assistance to implement the said order. The trial Court in view of the law laid down in Rayapati Audemma Vs. Pothineni Narasimham, AIR 1971 A.P. 53 inter alia observed in its order dated 17th Oct., 1988 thereon as follows:- "A Letter to the learned Sessions Judge be written with the request that the matter may be taken with the S. P. Rohtak, for providing police assistance to the plaintiff mill. Be tagged with the main case file." The learned District Judge declined the said reference by order dated 21st Oct., 1988 on the administrative side. The plaintiff then moved an application purporting to be under section 151 of the Code, for the grant of the police help. The said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 18th Nov., 1988 inter alia with the observations:- "5. Secondly police help for the implementation of the order of the Civil Court has to be provided, if at all in the rarest of rare cases, and I do not think that this case is one such. 6. Thirdly, who will determine whether a particular activity carried out by the Union amounts to violation of the interim injunction granted by the learned Sub Judge ? If police help, as asked for the by the Mill, is provided, then power will stand delegated to the Mill management and the police to determine whether a particular act violates the injunction order or not. This cannot be permitted." It was further observed:- "8. I am afraid, if police help is granted to the Mill in the circumstances of the case, there are more chances of the abuse of the process of the Court rather than of prevention thereof. 9. Fifthly, if law and order is being disturbed, then it is the statutory duty of the police to take action in the matter. For this, no direction is required from any Court."
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order to implement the order of the trial Court, the police help was rightly granted by it, but the learned District Judge declined the same arbitrarily. The learned counsel further submitted that such powers do vest in the Court under section 151 of the Code. Reliance in this behalf was placed on Rayapati Audemma's case (supra). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in case there was any violation, committed by the respondent, the petitioners may approach the police directly, but no such direction could be given by the civil Court.;