1. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Sundi, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. In this application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur in Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2010 under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure has been called in question.

3. The present petitioner as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 46 of 2006 in the court of learned Munsiff No.1 at Tezpur praying for his declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession along with other prayers. In the said suit he also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for injunction and the learned trial court passed an order on 25.9.2006 directing the parties to maintain status-quo with respect to the suit property. It is the case of the opposite parties here that prior to institution of the suit there was a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before Executive Magistrate at Tezpur wherein an order of attachment has been passed. The said order of attachment was subsequently vacated. The opposite parties thereafter preferred a revision petition before the High Court and thereupon the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate was stayed. It is the case of the opposite parties that after interim order was passed by the court, the attachment order passed by the Executive Magistrate stood automatically renewed and so the plaintiff/present petitioner ought not to have disturbed the status quo of the suit land but he did so with effect from 4.7.2007 by making construction on the suit land. Under such circumstances, he became guilty under order XXXIX Rule 2 A of the CPC and became liable for punishment.

4. Appearing in the case, the present petitioner filed objection denying the allegation of breach of injunction and stated that the suit itself had been dismissed for default on 1.8.2007 and so there was no question of any violation of status quo order. The present petitioner denied the allegation leveled and claimed to be tried.

5. Upon such rival contentions of the parties, the learned court permitted the opposite parties herein to lead evidence on the allegation of breach of injunction in Misc. (J) Case No. 78 of 2007. The opposite party examined himself as sole witness and exhibited as many as five documents. All these exhibits are the various orders passed in proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the Executive Magistrate and one stay order in Criminal Petition by the High Court arising out of the vacation of attachment order. The Opposite parties did not make any endeavour to exhibit or prove any injunction order passed by the learned trial court on 25.9.2006 or on any other date and thus in the absence of any document establishing continuance of injunction over the suit land in the form of status quo or otherwise, there was no material whatsoever on record to show that there was an order of status quo by a competent civil court and that the plaintiff had violated the same. The learned Munsiff having noticed such cryptic evidence of the opposite party herein rejected the Misc. (J) Case No.78 of 2007 holding that there was no violation of any injunction. The photographs brought on record as material exhibits No. 1 and 2 dated 20.7.2007 could not be established as photographs of the suit property with respect to which status quo order is said to have been passed holding that in the present era of advancement of science and technology, there is every chance to enter a different data in a camera than a date on which a photograph was taken and as such there is always a suspicion on the date of photograph taken in the present age which can be put as per the wish of the operator. In view of the fact that the opposite party herein could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a breach of injunction, the learned Munsiff dismissed the Misc. (J) Case No. 78 of 2007 by judgment and order