{"id":9189,"date":"2026-07-24T09:55:53","date_gmt":"2026-07-24T09:55:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/?p=9189"},"modified":"2026-07-24T09:55:54","modified_gmt":"2026-07-24T09:55:54","slug":"rajasthan-hc-ordered-police-protection-over-the-renovation-of-mahadev-temple-said-judicial-orders-cannot-remain-on-paper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/rajasthan-hc-ordered-police-protection-over-the-renovation-of-mahadev-temple-said-judicial-orders-cannot-remain-on-paper\/","title":{"rendered":"Rajasthan HC ordered police protection over the renovation of Mahadev Temple, said judicial orders cannot remain on paper"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Jodhpur:<\/strong> The Rajasthan High Court in a recent dispute over the renovation of Shri Mahadev Ji Temple in Soorsagar, Jodhpur has ruled that civil courts have the power to direct police assistance for the effective implementation of their injunction orders and cannot allow judicial directions to remain merely on paper because of obstruction by the opposite party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delivering the judgment, Justice Farjand Ali held that once a court has passed an injunction order, it has a corresponding duty to ensure that the order is effectively implemented. If credible material shows that its execution is being obstructed, the court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to grant police protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case arose from a registered society managing the Shri Mahadev Ji Temple filing a civil suit seeking protection over the temple property. In July 2025, the trial court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the society’s peaceful possession and use of the property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the petitioner, when renovation work began, the defendants obstructed the work and interfered with its peaceful possession, forcing the renovation to stop. The society then sought police assistance under Section 151 CPC to ensure implementation of the injunction order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the trial court rejected the application, holding that the petitioner could instead initiate proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC for violation of the injunction and that police protection should be granted only in cases of grave emergency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Setting aside the trial court’s order, the High Court held that it had misunderstood the legal distinction between proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC and an application seeking police assistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court explained that proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A are punitive in nature and are meant to punish deliberate disobedience of an injunction order. In contrast, an application seeking police protection is preventive and is intended to ensure immediate and effective implementation of an existing judicial order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A litigant cannot be forced to pursue contempt proceedings when the immediate need is enforcement of the court’s order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court further observed that once an injunction has already been granted after judicial consideration, the court is not required to again hear or obtain the consent of the opposite party before directing implementation of its own order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Allowing an alleged violator to effectively decide whether a judicial order should be enforced would undermine the authority of the judiciary and the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rejecting the trial court’s observation that police assistance should be confined to cases of “grave emergency,” the High Court held that deliberate obstruction in implementing a subsisting court order itself constitutes an emergent situation warranting judicial intervention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court said the majesty of law lies not merely in passing judicial orders but also in ensuring that they are respected and effectively implemented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also noted that the dispute concerned renovation of a temple, where unnecessary obstruction despite an existing court order could hurt religious sentiments, disturb communal harmony, and create avoidable law-and-order situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It observed that courts are not expected to wait for an unfortunate incident before granting protection and emphasised that preventive justice is preferable to remedial justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the trial court’s order and directed the concerned Civil Judge to immediately issue directions to the Superintendent of Police or the Station House Officer to provide adequate police protection for the peaceful and unobstructed renovation of Shri Mahadev Ji Temple in accordance with the existing injunction order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, it clarified that the police’s role is limited to facilitating implementation of the judicial order and that neither party can be permitted to act beyond the scope of the injunction<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court in a recent dispute over the renovation of Shri Mahadev Ji Temple in Soorsagar, Jodhpur has ruled that civil courts have the power to direct police assistance for the effective implementation of their injunction orders and cannot allow judicial directions to remain merely on paper because of obstruction by the … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9190,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,69],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories","category-rajasthan-high-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9189"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9189\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9191,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9189\/revisions\/9191"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9190"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}