A court has the duty to put the plaintiff into possession by passing necessary orders if the defendant changes the lock during the subsistence of an injunction order.

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. This revisional application is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against Order No. 53 dated December 4, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 9th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 76 of 1999 thereby rejecting an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a direction upon the opposite parties to open the lock of the gate of the suit property.

2. The present petitioner filed against the opposite parties in the 4th Court, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore a suit being Title Suit No. 138 of 1998 which was transferred to the 9th Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore and was renumbered as Title Suit No. 76 of 1999.

3. In the suit, the present petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the opposite parties, their men and agent from entering into 'A' scheduled property and from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner in any manner. The petitioner also prayed for an ad interim order of injunction in terms of the aforesaid prayer.

4. The learned trial Judge by Order No. 2 dated November 13, 1998 issued notice upon the opposite parties to show cause why the prayer of the petitioner for temporary injunction should not be granted. The learned trial Judge considering the urgency of the matter also restrained the opposite parties by an ad interim order of injunction from disturbing the petitioner's possession in respect of 'A' scheduled property till the disposal of the injunction application.

5. The present opposite parties entered appearance and filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for variation of the ad interim order of injunction. In the said application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code the opposite parties specifically asserted that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit property and as such no question of disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner arose. In the said application it was specifically stated that the opposite party no.1 was given possession of the suit property following work order dated July 20, 1998 pursuant to a letter of agreement dated June 24, 1998 by the petitioner and till that day the opposite party no.1 was in actual physical possession over the same. It was further stated that the opposite party no.1 had almost complied with its entire part of the contract although the plaintiff had not made payment in terms of the aforesaid agreement.

6. The learned trial Judge by Order No. 35 dated November 16, 1999 disposed of the main application for temporary injunction along with the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code filed by the opposite parties by making the previous ad interim order of injunction dated November 13, 1998 absolute till the disposal of the suit. By the said order, the learned trial Judge thus allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner.

7. While passing the aforesaid Order No. 35, the learned trial Judge specifically recorded that the defendant/opposite party no.1 was entrusted with the interior decoration of the suit flat which was owned and possessed by the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge further observed that for the work like interior decoration, the plaintiff might have entrusted the workmen of the opposite party no.1 with the key of the flat for its decoration, but it did not mean that the opposite party no.1 or its men and agent could go on holding possession of the said flat on the ground of dispute as to the payment. The learned trial Judge further by relying upon Annexure to the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit flat. Ultimately, the learned trial Judge further held that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if the ad interim order of injunction earlier granted was not allowed to continue or made absolute till the