Relief cannot be accorded if not prayed for and pleaded, and the consequences of breaching the injunction order are prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. The impugned order dated 7th May, 2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 149 of 2011 thereby affirming the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No. 27 of 2004, under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. arising out of Title Suit No. 168 of 2002 and further allowing the cross objection of the respondent in connection with CIS Misc. Appeal No. 291 of 2016, is the subject of challenge in this Revisional Application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner/appellant instituted Title Suit No. 168 of 2002, impleading opposite parties/ respondents as defendants. In connection with such suit an ad interim order of injunction was granted against the defendants on 28.06.2002, directing both the parties to the suit to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property and not to change its nature and its character and further not to transfer the same to the third party.

3. It was also alleged by the petitioner that in spite of the ad interim order of injunction granted in this case, the opposite parties, namely Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. committed deliberate breach of the injunction order and violating the injunction order forcibly dispossessed the petitioner/appellant on 12.01.2004 in order to start I.O.C.L. retail outlet for selling petroleum products in the suit property. Since the opposite parties deliberately committed breach of the ad interim order of injunction, petitioner proceeded to take out an application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) of C.P.C. alleging violation of injunction order, which was registered in connection with the Misc. Case No. 27 of 2004. The opposite party No. 1 filed affidavit in opposition in connection with the said Misc. Case, admitting that the possession of the suit property had been taken with help of the local administration, when the High Court granted stay of all further proceedings in connection with C.O. No. 1059 of 2003, filed by opposite party No. 1, challenging the order No. 10 dated 13th March, 2003, rejecting the plaint. The court below disposed of the Misc. Case on 18.02.2011 disbelieving the alleged violation of injunction order on the ground that breach, if there be any, was done under bona fide belief that there subsisted no ad interim order of injunction pursuant of interim order of stay being granted in C.O. No. 1059 of 2003, but even after disbelieving violation of injunction order, the learned court below proceeded to pass an order, directing opposite parties namely respondent No. 1 to restore possession of dispossessed land in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff within a period of 30 days from the date of order.

4. The petitioner/appellant preferred Misc. Appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, passed by the Trial Court in connection with Misc. Case No. 27 of 2004. It was alleged in the appeal that appellant only prayed for detention of the respondent in civil presence and alternatively for attachment of the properties of the respondent No. 1, but the court below of its own motion proceeded to pass an order directing restoration of possession, which was not even prayed for.

5. It was further challenged in the appeal that learned court below erroneously reached to a decision disbelieving violation of injunction order even after admission of the opposite party No. 1 stating to have taken possession of the suit property with the help of police, when the High Court had granted stay of all further proceedings of the pending suit in connection with C.O. No. 1059 of 2003.

6. The opposite party No. 1 filed cross objection to the appeal of the appellant/petitioner in order to challenge that part of the order, given by the Trial Court directing restoration of possession of the suit property to the petitioner/appellant. It was challenged by the cross- objector that since there was no finding regarding possession of the suit property, whe