D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) In this appeal Mr. Aninda Mitra, Senior Counsel, appearing with Mr. Sarkar, had raised a simple but interesting question that whether once an order of status quo is granted in the facts and circumstances of this case on 8th September, 2003, could an application made under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the defendant-respondent herein be heard along with the application for injunction and the forcible taking of possession by the defendant through police help could be allowed to be continued in violation of the order of status quo. Relying on the decisions in Sujit Pal vs. Prabir Kumar Sun & Ors., AIR 1986 Cal. 220; Vidya Charan Shukla vs. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association & Anr., AIR 1991 Mad. 323 and Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr., 1996(4) SCC 622, he contended that in case it is found that the order of injunction or status quo is violated, in that event, the Court has inherent power to restore the situation as was existing on the date when the order of status quo was passed without being hindered by any technicality or otherwise despite availability of remedy under the Contempt of Courts Act or under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC. Therefore, the learned Court below could not have refused to pass prohibitory order.
(2.) Mr. Mitra had taken us through the pleadings, as made in the application for stay filed along with the appeal to point out that the defendant had admitted that this passage belongs to Premises No. 4, Netaji Subhas Road adjacent to Premises No. 2, Netaji Subhas Road and that they have been obstructed from using the said passage in between the said premises for the purpose of parking their cars because of posting of a guard and locking of the gate. Relying on those materials, he pointed out that the defendant-respondent had admitted that they have no right over the said passage and that they have already been prevented from using the said passage for the purpose of parking their cars. In these circumstances, the defendant's obtaining of recovery of possession through police help enabling them to park their cars is clearly in violation of the order of status quo which needs immediate remedy by way of passing prohibitory order of injunction restraining the defendants from using the said passage for the purpose of parking their cars or otherwise during the pendency of the application filed by the appellant seeking mandatory and temporary injunction after the defendants have violated the order of status quo, since the said application contains prayers for temporary injunction. In the circumstances, this appeal should be allowed and appropriate orders should be passed in order to sustain the order of status quo passed earlier by the learned Court below.
(3.) The principles enunciated by Mr. Mitra are undisputed and are accepted principles of law. In case it appears to the Court that there has been violation of the interim order granted by the Court, in that event, in order to see that its orders are obeyed, the Court has every right to invoke its inherent jurisdiction in spite of alternative remedies available under the Contempt of Courts Act or under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. Neither one can take advantage of nor can put an order to abuse. At the same time, one can neither violate nor continue to violate the order. Neither one can be allowed to continue to take advantage of his own wrong obtained by violation of the order. In order to apply such principle, the Court must find and come to a clear conclusion that its order has since been violated on the facts and that the order of status quo is proved to the satisfaction of the Court prima facie that there was such a situation prevailing on the date when the order of status quo was passed. The Court has to arrive at a clear cut finding" that there was such a violation and that the party complained is continuing to take advantage of such violation, in order to apply the principle. But this is dependant on the facts that are brought before the Court.;