CHANDRAL ANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, admittedly, is a tenantof the second respondent Loka Shi-kshanatrust. lt appears that there existdisputes between the petitioner andother tenants on the one hand andthe trustees of the Trust on the otherhand in regard to ingress and eggressto their respective premises in havingthe gate closed. In that connection,civil suits are pending in the Court ofthe Munsiff at Hubii. A temporaryinjunction has also been obtained bythe petitioner, that pending disposal ofthe suit, none should restrict thepetitioner to have access to his premises. The second and third respondents aredefendants in the said suit. lt is furtheraverred by the petitioner that theobstruction caused by respondents 2,3 and persons claiming and actionon their instructions, is such whichimpairs their rights as tenants as theyare required to produce identity cardsand passes etc , to pass through thegate. It is further alleged that adjacentto the old gates, new gates have beenconstructed by the 2nd and 3rdrespondents and the new gate hasbeen closed. No-where, it is statedthat the old gates are also closed andaccess through old gate is denied tothe petitioner. ( 2 ) EN that circumstance, petitionerapproached first respondent Additional Superintendent of police, Hubli forassistance to use the new gate. He,in turn, has issued endorsement as atannexure'b'stating that the petitioneris informed that the nature of disputecomplained of is civil in character andas such, petitioner must approach civilcourt for appropriate relief. Aggrievedby the same, present Writ Petition ispreferred seeking a mandamus tocompel the respondents to keep the gatesopen between 7 a. m. , and 10 p. m. , onall days. ( 3 ) IN the complaint before thefirst respondent, the allegations madeare identical with the statement offacts before this Court. They have broughtto the notice of the Superintendent,pendency of the civil suit and the factthat induction has been granted bythe Principa Munsiff. The injuctionorder itself is not produced before thiscourt. Only complaint copy isproduced. Therefore, this Court is notapprised of the language and terms in whichthetemporary injunction has beengranted. If there is disobedience of theinjunction operative against respondents2 and 3, adequate provision is made under Rule 2a of Order 39 of C. P. C to compel obedience. Therefore, the superintendent of Police was correct in issuing the endorsement that the matter must be agitated before the civil Conrt where the dispute is already pending in litigation. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, Smt. . Therefore, the superintendent of Police was correct in issuing the endorsement that the matter must be agitated before the civil Conrt where the dispute is already pending in litigation. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, Smt. . Suman Hegde drew the attention of the Court to a Division Bench decision of this court in S. K. Sharma v. Corporation of Bangalore. (ILR 1986 Kar. 2536.) that case explains the principle underlying Art. 226 of the Constitution and the orders made by this Court, when that has been brought to the notice of the Police authorities, they should enforce the same. That decision, in my is view, not of any assistance because on the facts of that case, this Court was dealing with the order passed by this Court not under provisions of C. P. C. , but under article 226 (3) of the Constitution. When the Code of Civil Procedure specifically provides a remedy and a machinery for enforcement of the injunction, this Court under Article 226 ought not to suplement it under article 226. The petitioner must approach the Civil Court where the litigation is pending for appropriate directions and consequential penal orders against those who have disobeyed the injuction. Question of disobedience is a question of fact which should be ascertained judicially and that cannot be done by a Police officer on a complaint made by one of the parties to the suit. If that power is given to the Police authorities in the state, then that will amount to sitting the judgment over the orders of the civil Courts and therefore, such possibility should be avoided. Court is the best judge of whether its order has been obeyed or disobeyed and not other authoriies. Therefore, this petition is misconceived and it is rejected. Writ petition rejected. --- *** --- .