AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 226 wordsRatnam, J.—The Court below was quite right in directing that police assistance should be made available for the purpose of implementing
the injunction order granted by the Court earlier. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the Respondent before the Court below that in I.A. No. 476
of 1989 the Respondent had succeeded in obtaining an order of injunction absolute against the Petitioners. In spite of it, according to the
Respondent, the Petitioners interfered with her possession of the property and it was under those circumstances that the Respondent was obliged
to seek the protection of the police through Court for giving effect to the order of injunction obtained in I.A. No. 476 and the Court below granted
the request of the Respondent. By ordering the police help to the Respondent, the Court below had merely taken the follow-up steps to implement
its earlier order of injunction. When the Court finds that a (sic) who had secured an order from Court is not in a position to have its full benefit
owning either to Obstruction or non-cooperation of the other side, it is always open to the Court to resort to the law enforcement machinery to see
that its order is obeyed and there is nothing illegal or irregular in that. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
