The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that civil courts cannot force a party to wait for a "grave emergency" before granting police assistance to enforce an injunction order already in place.
Justice Farjand Ali, hearing a writ petition from Jodhpur, held that once a court has passed an injunction, ensuring its implementation is the court's own responsibility, not something that needs the losing party's consent.
Background Of The Case
The dispute involves the Soorsagar Mali (Sainik Shatriya) Sansthan, a registered society, which had filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction over property linked to the Temple of Lord Mahadeva in Soor Sagar, Jodhpur. The trial court had granted an ad interim injunction on 03.07.2025, restraining the opposite parties from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession.
However, when the society tried to carry out renovation work at the temple, the respondents allegedly obstructed the work and disrupted possession. The petitioner then approached the trial court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, asking for police help to implement the injunction smoothly.
The Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, rejected this request on 13.06.2026, reasoning that the petitioner should instead pursue contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC, and that police help could only be given in cases of "grave emergency."
Court's Observations
Justice Ali disagreed sharply with this reasoning. The court clarified that Order XXXIX Rule 2-A is a punitive remedy meant to punish deliberate disobedience, whereas a plea for police assistance simply seeks smooth enforcement of an order already passed. The bench noted that once an injunction is passed, the question of whether it deserves to be granted is already settled, and issuing directions for its implementation falls within the court's own supervisory powers.
On the "grave emergency" argument, the court observed that obstruction of a judicial order is itself an emergent situation. It added that matters involving places of worship need extra sensitivity, since unresolved obstruction could disturb communal harmony. The court remarked that preventive justice is always better than remedial justice, and courts shouldn't wait for an unfortunate incident before acting.
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the trial court's order dated 13.06.2026. It directed the Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, to immediately instruct the Superintendent of Police and the concerned Station House Officer to provide adequate protection for peaceful execution of the temple renovation work, while making clear that police must only facilitate the existing injunction and not let either side exceed its scope.
Case Details
Case Title: Shri Mahadev Ji Kaluram Ji Ki Bawdi, Through Soorsagar Mali (Sainik Shatriya) Sansthan v. Shri Milap Singh & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14175/2026
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali
Decision Date: 10 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
