A court has the inherent power to grant relief to a party who has been forcibly dispossessed in violation of an order of injunction, even if the procedure laid down in Order 39, Rule 2a CPC is not followed.

( 1 ) AN order dated 12th April 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah in miscellaneous Appeal No. 296 of 1998 affirming the order dated 4 september 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 3 of 1997, is under challenge in this revisional application.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of his tenancy right in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction.

( 3 ) AFTER filing the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, inter alia, praying for an order of temporary injunction for restraining the defendant/opposite party No. 1 and his men, agents from interfering and/or disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge by his order being Order No. 2 dated 10th January 1997 was pleased to pass ad-interim order of injunction on the said application and thereby restrained the defendant No. 1 from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises till disposal of the said injunction petition.

( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, however, by an order vide No. 16 dated 27th may 1997 passed by the learned trial Judge, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of possession in the suit property till disposal of the suit.

( 6 ) DURING the continuance of the said order of injunction, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant/ opposite party No. 1 on 6th April 1997 in violation of the order of injunction. As such, the petitioner filed an application for temporary mandatory injunction for restoration of his possession in the suit property.

( 7 ) THE said application of the plaintiff/petitioner was allowed by the learned trial Judge on 4th September 1998 after a contested hearing. The said order of restoration was also affirmed by the learned appellate Court on 12th April 2002.

( 8 ) THE said order of mandatory temporary injunction is under challenge in the revisional application.

( 9 ) HEARD the learned Advocates of the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

( 10 ) ON perusal of the order of both the Courts below passed in connection with the petitioner's said application for temporary mandatory injunction, it appears that both the Courts below passed and/or maintained the said order of temporary mandatory injunction by holding concurrently that the plaintiff/petitioner was dispossessed from the suit property by the opposite party at a point of time when the order of injunction was in force.

( 11 ) MR. Karmakar, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner, by drawing my attention to the judgment and order of the learned trial Court tried to impress upon this Court that in the absence of any specific finding to the effect that the petitioner was in fact in possession of the suit property on the date when the order of injunction was passed and he was dispossessed from the suit property in violation of the order of injunction during the subsistence of such order of injunction, an order of mandatory temporary injunction for restoration of possession cannot be passed.

( 12 ) MR. Karmakar further pointed out from the judgment and order of the learned trial Court that the trial Court found that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property up to 30th October 1987 but what was the actual state of position, as on the date of passing of the order of injunction, i. e. , 10th January 1997, was not ascertained by either of the learned Courts below.

( 13 ) THUS, Mr. Karmakar submitted that the order impugned cannot be supported, as no order of restoration of possession can be passed without ascertaining as to whether a party in whose favour such order of restoration was passed, was in fact in possession of the suit property on the dat