Courts Must Enforce Their Own Orders: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Police Aid to Implement Injunction

Case Name: Mamta v. Jagdish Chander

Date of Judgment: 25.03.2026

Citation: CR-5874-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl

Held: The High Court held that courts possess inherent powers to enforce their injunction orders, including granting police assistance. A party cannot be permitted to violate an injunction and then resist its enforcement on the plea of possession.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the trial Court’s order granting police assistance to the respondent for enforcement of an injunction order in a civil dispute concerning possession of a residential property.

The respondent, a senior citizen, had earlier obtained an injunction restraining the petitioner (his daughter-in-law) from interfering in his possession of the property. The petitioner’s own application claiming possession had been dismissed, and the appellate Court had upheld the injunction in favour of the respondent .

Despite the injunction being in force, the respondent alleged that the petitioner trespassed into the property by breaking open the lock during his absence. Based on these allegations, an application seeking police help was filed, which was allowed by the trial Court.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that she had been in possession of the property since her marriage and that no finding of violation of injunction had been recorded.

The Court rejected these arguments, noting that the issue of possession had already been adjudicated and decided against the petitioner. It observed that reiterating a rejected plea of possession, despite an operative injunction, itself reflects defiance of the court’s order.

The Court emphasized that there is a clear distinction between punitive action for breach of injunction and enforcement of the injunction. It held that courts are not required to wait for actual violation to be proved through contempt proceedings and can proactively ensure compliance by granting police assistance.

The Court further held that permitting such conduct would render injunction orders meaningless and undermine the authority of courts.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order granting police assistance. It held that the trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction to enforce the injunction order and ensure its effective implementation. The Court also permitted the petitioner to lead evidence at the appropriate stage without being influenced by observations in the impugned order.