A writ application is not maintainable for enforcement of an order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the period specified in the order has expired.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed gainst a judgment and order dated 26-3-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellant herein was summarily dismissed on the ground that the dispute involved is private in nature.

( 2 ) THE fact that the petitioner and the private respondents have been fighting over a permises for a long time is not in dispute. The contention of Mrs. Mukherjee is that the learned trial Judge erred in dismissing the application in limine as the main relief prayed for in the writ application was directed against the Police Authorities. The prayers made by the petitioner in the writ application, inter alia, are :- (A) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and each of them, whether by themselves, their servents, agents, sub-ordinates or otherwise howsoever to act in accordance with law and forthwith; (i) Prevent the commission of cognizable and non-cognizable offences by the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein and their associates in or around the petitioner's said Plot No. 133, within Mouza 107 at Natna, p. S. Tehatta in the District of nadia and to see that the said private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and their associates do not interfere, obstruct and/or impair the petitioner's fundamental rights to enter into the said petitioner's place of residence and/or reconstruct the tioner's dwelling house thereat and/or to live peacefully at the said place of residence with the petitioner's daughters thereat in any manner whatsoever; (II) Post a police picket at the petitioner's said place of residence and afford adequate police protection to the petitioner and her daughters thereat so that the petitioner and her daughters are able to exercise their fundamental rights to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution of India including the right to live with dignity and honour therein.

( 3 ) MRS. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel submits that despite orders passed by the Civil court and despite repeated orders passed under section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure by the Magistrate, it had not been possible for her client to enter into her own premises. The learned Counsel contends that keeping in view the decision of Kanoria Jute and Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. The Home Secretary, government of West Bengal and Ors. 1, and CPA Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. , Employees' union and Ors. v. CPA Consultancy services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors2, the writ application was maintainable.

( 4 ) MR. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the othej hand, submitted that parties are cosharers and in fact while the appellant gifted her own share in favour of her daughters, she intends to encroach upon a building which is in exclusive possession of the private respondent. It has been pointed out that although a decree has been passed, the matter is pending in Second Appeal before this Court being SAT no. 199/97. It has further been pointed out that the last order und^r Section 144 of the code of Criminal Procedure was passed on or petiabout 9-11-94 and the period prescribed under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having expired, no writ is maintainable for enforcing the said order.

( 5 ) MR. Debasish Kargupta, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has drawn our attention to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the resepondent No. 4 affirmed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, that in tital Appeal No. 110 of 1994 disposed of on 25th September, 1996 that no title has been declared in favour of the plaintiff and merely a decree for permanent injunction has been passed. Our attention has also been drawn to the statements made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in opposition which is to the following effect:"complaint was lodged by the petitioner about an incident committed on 5-6-1998 whereby an alle