Satyabrata Sinha, A.C.J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 26.8.99 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, which is to the following effect:- "The learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents submits that the order of the Executive Magistrate shall be complied with. The concerned police authority shall file a compliance report on the next date of hearing. The matter is adjourned for a week. The learned Advocates are permitted to take the gist of the order and the concerned police authorities shall act on the basis of such communication."
(2.) Admittedly, the writ petitioner-respondents herein has filed a suit and by an order dated 31.5.99 an ad interim order of injunction in the form of status quo in respect of the suit premises was passed. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached the police authorities who allegedly informed them to bring an order passed by an Executive Magistrate, pursuant whereto an application was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Krishnagar, Nadia which was marked as Application No. 489A (S)/99 wherein necessary protection was directed to be given to the petitioner. It appears that later on by an order dated 3.8.99 as contained in Annexure 'F' to the stay application status quo was directed to be passed.
(3.) From the impugned order as noticed hereinbefore, it appears that the Counsel for the state-respondents had submitted that the order of the Executive Magistrate shall be complied with. The attention of the learned Judge evidently had not been drawn to the subsequent order and probably attention of the learned Judge was drawn to the order of status quo passed by the learned Civil Judge.;