Rajasthan High Court Orders Police Protection For Temple Renovation, Says Judicial Orders Can't Be Reduced To Paper Decrees
Courts not expected to wait for unfortunate incident to actually occur before extending necessary protection.
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a trial court order rejecting an application seeking police assistance for the implementation and enforcement of an interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner in a dispute concerning renovation of the Lord Mahadev Temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 298] Justice Farjand Ali held that there is a marked distinction between proceedings under Order...
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a trial court order rejecting an application seeking police assistance for the implementation and enforcement of an interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner in a dispute concerning renovation of the Lord Mahadev Temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 298]
Justice Farjand Ali held that there is a marked distinction between proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which are punitive in nature, and a prayer seeking police assistance for implementation of an existing injunction order.
The Court observed that once an injunction order has been passed, issuance of ancillary directions to ensure its effective implementation falls within the supervisory and inherent powers of the Court. It emphasized that the majesty of law lies not merely in passing judicial orders but equally in ensuring that they are respected, honoured and effectively implemented.
"Any deliberate obstruction in enforcement of a subsisting judicial order strikes at the very root of the rule of law and itself constitutes an emergent circumstance warranting immediate intervention by the Court."
The Court further observed that matters concerning places of worship demand a greater degree of sensitivity, promptitude and vigilance.
The petitioner had instituted a suit for permanent injunction, pleading that renovation work of the Lord Mahadev Temple situated on the suit property was required to be undertaken. The trial court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful use and occupation of the property.
According to the petitioner, when renovation work commenced pursuant to the injunction order, the respondents obstructed the work and created such an atmosphere that the renovation had to be discontinued. The petitioner, therefore, moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking police assistance to ensure effective implementation of the injunction order.
The trial court rejected the application, observing that the petitioner could avail the remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC for the alleged disobedience of the injunction order and that police assistance could be granted only in cases of "grave emergency."
The High Court found this reasoning legally unsustainable, holding that it proceeded on a complete misconception of the relief sought by the petitioner.
Explaining the distinction between proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC and a prayer for police assistance, the Court observed,
"Proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A are punitive in nature... neither intended nor designed to secure immediate enforcement of the injunction order or to facilitate its smooth implementation. On the other hand, where a Court has already exercised its judicial discretion and passed an ad interim injunction, it equally carries an obligation to ensure that its order is not reduced to a mere paper decree. If credible material is placed before the Court indicating obstruction in implementation of its order, the Court would be failing in its duty if it remains a silent spectator and relegates the successful litigant merely to punitive proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC."
The Court also rejected the trial court's observation that police assistance could be granted only in cases of "grave emergency." It held that the expression could not be interpreted so narrowly as to exclude situations where implementation of a subsisting judicial order itself was being obstructed.
According to the Court, deliberate obstruction of a judicial order strikes at the rule of law and itself constitutes an emergent circumstance warranting immediate intervention.
Referring to the facts of the case, the Court observed that religious faith and public sentiments attached to places of worship deserve due respect and protection. It cautioned that permitting obstruction despite a subsisting judicial order could generate public dissatisfaction, disturb communal harmony and create avoidable law and order situations, thereby justifying the grant of police assistance.
"The Court is not expected to wait for an unfortunate incident to actually occur before extending necessary protection. Preventive justice is always preferable to remedial justice... Once this Court finds that a subsisting injunction order is allegedly being obstructed and police assistance is sought only for facilitating its implementation, the Civil Court ought to extend necessary police protection so that the dignity, authority and majesty of judicial orders remain preserved and public confidence in the administration of justice remains unshaken."
In this light, it was held that the trial court adopted an approach that defeated the cause of justice, and hence, the order was patently illegal with material irregularity and manifest perversity.
Accordingly, the trial court was directed to direct the concerned police officials to extend protection and assistance to the petitioner for facilitating peaceful and unobstructed renovation of the temple.
Title: Shri Mahadev Ji Kaluram Ji Ki Bawdi v Shri Milap Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 298