As long as an interim order of injunction is in operation, neither party can change the nature and character of the suit property, and the court may allow the plaintiff's prayer for police help for the implementation of the order of injunction.

1. AN ad-interim order of injunction was passed by the learned trial Judge on the plaintiff's application vide Order No. 2 dated 24th August, 2007. By the said order, the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the nature, character, possession and transfer of the suit properties till 24th September, 2007. The said order was extended from time to time and the same is still in force. .

2. SUBSEQUENTLY, the plaintiff has filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia, praying for police help for implementation of order of injunction. The petitioner's said application for police help was rejected by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order dated 24th February, 2010 vide Order No.37. The learned trial Judge held that since there is no restrain order against the defendants from constructing the suit property, the prayer for police help cannot be allowed in the facts of the instant case.

The propriety of the said order is under challenge in the said application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner herein.

3. HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Considered the materials-on-record including the order impugned.

4. LET me now consider as to how far the learned trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case.

The interim order of injunction which was passed by the learned trial Judge in the said suit has already been mentioned above. The said order sufficiently indicates that both the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the nature and character of the suit property.

5. HERE is the case, where the plaintiff has made an allegation against the defendants as they were trying to raise construction in the suit property. If the defendants are allowed to raise construction in the suit property then certainly the nature and character of the suit property will be changed.

6. IN my view, neither party can be allowed to change the nature and character of the suit property either by raising any construction or by demolishing any part thereof so long as the interim order of injunction is in operation.

Since admittedly the interim order of injunction is still in operation, the learned trial Judge ought to have allowed the plaintiff's prayer for grant of police help for implementation of order of injunction.

7. ACCORDINGLY, the plaintiff's prayer for grant of police help for implementation of order of injunction stands allowed.

8. THE Officer-in-Charge of the Lilua Police Station is directed to render necessary police help to the parties for implementation of the order of injunction passed by the learned trial Judge on 24th August, 2007 whenever such assistance will be requisitioned by any of the parties to the suit.

The learned trial Judge is requested to dispose of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction as early as possible but preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

9. THE impugned order is, thus, set aside.

10. THE revisional application is, thus, allowed. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocate for the petitioner immediately.