The court has the authority to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to restore possession of the suit property when an order of injunction is violated and the nature and character of the property are changed.

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. Legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 3rd September, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amta, Hooghly in Title Suit No.137 of 2015 rejecting plaintiff’s application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter C.P.C for short) for restoration of possession of title suit in favour of him with the help of police, is under challenge in the instant revision.

2. The petitioners filed the above mentioned title suit against the defendants/opposite parties for a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amta. In the said suit the petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for ad interim as well as temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their main and agents from disposing them from the suit property. The learned trial judge by an order dated 18th November, 2015 allowed plaintiffs/petitioners praying for ad interim injunction restraining the defendants/opposite parties from disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. It is allowed by the petitioners that while the said order of ad interim injunction was inforce the defendants/opposite parties tried to dispossess the petitioners on 6th January, 2016 on several dates i.e. 6th January, 2016 and 11th January, 2016 but failed due to timely and effective resistance by the petitioners. Finally on 14th February, 2016 the opposite parties with the help of others successfully and forcibly dispossessed the petitioners from the suit property and tried to raise some construction on the eastern portion of the suit land and thereby admitted to change the nature and character of the same. The petitioners immediately recorded the said incident of the illegal dispossession from a portion of the suit property in violation of the order of an ad interim injunction in the local PS. Subsequently, on 23rd March, 2016 the petitioners lodged a complain to the local Block Land and Land Revenue Officer (BL and LRO) against alleged illegal and forcible dispossession from a portion of the suit property. The Revenue Inspector, attached to the office of the BL and LRO, Amta-II conducted field inquiry in presence of both the petitioners and the opposite parties on the basis of the report of the said filed inquiry, the BL and LRO, Amta directed the opposite parties to restore the nature and character of the suit property to its original position and FIR was also lodged against the opposite parties for illegal conversion of the suit property under Section 4(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956.

3. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC praying for restoration of the possession of the suit property through police help. The petitioners also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC praying for local inspection of the suit property to ascertain as to whether they were dispossessed from the suit land or not. The learned trial judge allowed the aforesaid application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC and appointed an advocate commissioner for local inspection who on 29th May, 2016 submitted his report stating, inter alia, that there was a pukka construction up to plinth level used as a platform (Bedi) for worshiping Godies Ma Monasha and such construction was made very recently.

4. The learned trial judge perused the field inquiry report submitted by the Revenue Inspector in terms of order passed by local BL and LRO, order of the BL and LRO, report of the local inspection submitted by the advocate commissioner and refused to grant the prayer for restoration of possession in favour of the petitioners through police help.

5. The aforesaid order dated 13th September, 2016 is under challenged in the instant revision.

6. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the imp