JUDGMENT :

1. The revisional application is directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur in Misc. Appeal No.21 of 2023. By the said order, the learned lower appellate court upheld the order of mandatory injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Paschim Medinipur in Title Suit No.34 of 2017.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved because the learned appellate court failed to appreciate the factum of possession of the petitioners in the suit property and also the fact that an earlier application for restoration of possession was disposed of without any mandatory directions. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the subsequent order would be barred by the principles of res judicata.

3. The fact of the case in brief is that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, injunction and alternatively recovery of possession, in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Paschim Medinipur. Upon contested hearing, the application for temporary injunction was disposed of by restraining and prohibiting the defendants/ petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, till the disposal of the suit. The defendants neither preferred any appeal from the said order, nor did the defendants file an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for variation, vacation or modification of the order of temporary injunction.

4. On or about August 19, 2022, the defendants trespassed into the property and forcefully dispossessed the plaintiff and their aged parents from the suit property.

5. The plaintiff filed an application seeking restoration of possession for the first time on September 8, 2022. Thereafter, the plaintiff again filed another application for restoration of possession on January 16, 2023. In the said application, the plaintiff had categorically mentioned the factum of his dispossession along with his aged parents. It was stated that the plaintiff and his parents were living in a makeshift arrangement. The father of the plaintiff was 70 years old and the mother was about 65 years and partially paralysed after suffering a cerebral attack. That the makeshift arrangement was a tarpaulin shed structure. A police report had been called for by the learned trial judge.

6. The defendants denied such allegation and submitted that they had been in possession of the property in question for the last 20 years and the defendants furnished certain documents in support of their case.

7. On contested hearing, the learned trial judge allowed the application for restoration of possession and directed the Officer-in-Charge, Debra Police Station to assist the plaintiff in getting back possession. The learned trial court held that once there was an order of restraint by way of temporary injunction dated January 3, 2019 and an order of implementation of the same through police help dated October 7, 2021, the parties against whom the order had been passed, should comply with the same. In order to maintain sanctity of an order of the court, proper orders could be passed. If a party was allowed to disobey the order, as was in the present case, the same would amount to abuse of the process of court and the civil court would be rendered powerless if no steps were taken to check the atrocities of the defendants which were committed in violation of the order of injunction.

8. Considering the fact that the plaintiff had sufficient documents to show his possession and further considering the fact that the parents of the plaintiff were old and ailing and could not live in a makeshift tarpaulin shed, the court held that if the atrocities of the defendants were not checked, then it would cause irreparable loss and injury to party dispossessed and result in miscarriage of justice.

9. Such order dated February 1, 2023 was challenged by the petitioners/defendants in Misc. Appeal No.21 of 2023. The appeal was