PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order No.100 dated June 13, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah in Title Suit No.6 of 2006 thereby allowing an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff for implementation of the order of injunction. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching 'A' and 'A1' schedule of properties and also from raising any kind of construction on 'A' and 'A1' schedule of properties and disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. An order of injunction has been granted by the First Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No.102 of 2006 arising out of that suit. On the allegation of the plaintiff to the effect that the said order of injunction is not being complied with by the defendants, an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the impugned order directing the Officer-in-Charge, Maniktala P.S. to render necessary police help for the purpose of implementation of the order of injunction passed in the Misc. Appeal. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the defendant no.1.
(2.) NOW , the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Having heard the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the facts as recorded above are correct. The First Appellate Court allowed the said Misc. Appeal No.102 of 2006 on May 5, 2008 on contests without costs. Both the parties had been directed to maintain status quo in respect of possession, nature and character of 'A' and 'A1' schedule of properties till the disposal of the suit. The said order has not been set aside. Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the prayer for police help for implementation of the order as made in the application is not maintainable. If the plaintiff thinks that the order of injunction in the nature of status quo has been violated, appropriate steps may be taken under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. and thus, he has submitted that the impugned order should be set aside. With due respect to Mr. Mukherjee, I am of the view that this submission cannot be accepted.
(3.) IN the case of violation of the order of injunction, no doubt, the aggrieved party is at liberty to take appropriate steps under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. and even appropriate punishment may be awarded against the person who has violated the order of injunction. But, in that case, appropriate relief may not be rendered to the plaintiff to justify the sufferings that the aggrieved party, i.e., the plaintiff may suffer. In order to get the relief, the plaintiff may take appropriate steps under Section 151 of the C.P.C. for implementation of the order with the help of the police. Accordingly, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. There is no scope of interference with the impugned order.;