ORDER
R. Banumathi, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order of District Munsif, Thiruchengode, made in I.A. No. 678 of 2002 in I.A. No. 21 of 2002 in O.S. No. 6 of 2002 dated 8-7-2002, dismissing the petition filed under Section 151 C.P.C. declining to grant police protection. Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners.
2. The case of the Plaintiffs is that there was a London Mission Church in Devanankuruchi Village and a London Mission Teachers house, both 2 cents each in S. No. 91. London Missionary Society had transferred all its property in favour of Church of South India under the registered document on 11-4-1965. Natham Survey – 0.04 cents was sub-divided as S. No. 326/8. The old Church in the Teachers house was dilapidated. Regarding the construction of the house, there was a panchayat between Christians and Non-Christians of Adi-Dravidar Community on 4-2-2001 and again on 1-8-2001. Subsequently on 5-9-2001, there was a conciliation meeting in the presence of Thasildar, Thiruchengode. In all the Panchayat proceedings the Defendant was a party and he has also signed in all the meetings. Now, under the guise of Nattamai for Hindu Harijans and by the inducement of the Hindus, the Defendant is trying to obstruct the construction of the Pastor room’s and bell tower as agreed in the panchayat proceedings on 5-12-2001. The Defendant unlawfully obstructed the masons engaged in the construction work and he has also lodged a complaint against the Pastor on 6-12-2001. Hence, the Plaintiffs have been constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant his men, agents and servants from in any way obstructing the construction of the Pastor’s room adjoining to the Church in Natham S. No. 326/8 of Devanankuruchi Village.
3. I.A. No. 21 of 2002:- The Plaintiffs have filed this application for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the Defendant from in any way obstructing the construction of the Pastor’s room and bell tower of the Church. The application was adjourned to various dates for enquiry. Temporary injunction was granted on 18-3-2002, by allowing the petition.
4. I.A. No. 678 of 2002:- After the application for temporary injunction was allowed, the Plaintiffs have filed this application to issue direction to the Inspector of Police, Thiruchengode (Rural) to grant police aid to the Plaintiffs for construction of the Pastor’s room and bell tower in Natham S. No. 326/8.
5. The Defendant has not filed any counter to this application. Upon hearing the Petitioners’ side, the learned District Munsif, had dismissed the application declining police protection. The learned District Munsif observed that though temporary injunction was granted, there is no order enabling the Plaintiffs to construct the Pastor’s Room and also bell tower and hence, the Plaintiffs are not entitled for police aid.
6. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the application, the Plaintiffs have filed this revision. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has contended that the Plaintiffs’ Church has taken steps to construct the Pastor room and bell tower in the additional area and that in view of the continuous interference by the Defendant, police protection is very much essential for the same. Submitting that without Pastor’s room and bell tower the Plaintiffs’ Church is unable to carry on the routine work and the prayer, the learned counsel urges for police protection.
7. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has further contended that when there was injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the construction of the Pastor’s room and bell tower, the lower Court ought to have granted police aid. It is further submitted that the District Munsif has not taken note of the continuous interference of the Defendant with the construction work and in view of the interference, the Plaintiffs are entitled to police aid and if police protection is not ordered, the order of interim injunction would become otiose.
8. Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that there is a discrepancy in the suit survey number and if police protection is ordered, there is every possibility of the same being misinterpreted and the Plaintiffs’ Church might take advantage of the same and will try to construct the building in a wrong survey number. The learned counsel has further submitted that at this early stage no police protection could be ordered for construction of the Pastor’s room and bell tower.
9. In a referred matter, the Division Bench of this Court considered the question, Whether the Civil Courts can issue directions to the police officials in order to execute the order of the Civil Court or to implement the order of injunction passed by it. In Sri-La-Sri Sivasubramanyananda Swami v. Sri-La-Sri Arunachalasamy (1992 TNLJ 120), in answering the point referred the Division Bench has held that in exercising the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code, the Court can direct the police authorities to implement the order of injunction passed by it, if the party seeks aid of the Court for police protection. The observation of Division Bench is as follows:-
“In the light of the above discussion of ours, the question referred is answered as follows:-
In appropriate cases, the Civil Court has the power and is indeed under a duty, to issue suitable directions to police officials, as servants of law, to extend their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders of the Civil Courts or in implementing an order of injunction passed by it”.
Thus, in appropriate cases Civil Court has the power to issue suitable directions to the police Officials to execute the order of the Civil Court or implement the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court.
10. The main question that arises for consideration in this revision is, “whether this case is an appropriate case to order police protection ?”.
11. In this revision, the parties are yet to go on trial. Only a temporary injunction was granted. Under such circumstances, it would be too premature to order police protection. The learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that there are differences in the suit survey number. It is stated that in the plaint, the survey number is stated as S. No. 326/8, whereas, the correct survey number is 236/8. This could be gone into only at the time of trial and it is open to the Plaintiffs to seek an amendment to correct the survey number (if necessitated). In view of the dispute regarding the survey number of the suit property, ordering police protection might further intensify the differences between the parties. On that score also, police protection cannot be ordered at this stage.
12. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has submitted that without the Pastor’s room and bell tower the Plaintiffs’ Church is finding it difficult to carry on the daily worship and other Church activities. In consideration of the submissions of the Revision Petitioners, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met by directing the trial Court to expedite the trial of the suit in O.S.No. 6 of 2002 and dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. For the reasons stated above, the order made in I.A. No. 678 of 2002 in I.A. No. 21 of 2002 in O.S. No. 6 of 2002, dated 08-07-2002 by the learned District Munsif, Thiruchengode, is confirmed and this revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No. 15925 of 2002 is also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. The learned District Munsif, Thiruchengode, is directed to afford sufficient opportunity to the Plaintiffs’ Church (if necessary) to file suitable amendment application to correct the survey number in the plaint schedule. The learned District Munsif is further directed to expedite the trial in O.S.No. 6 of 2002 and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.