This application under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred challenging the concurrent findings of the learned courts below arising out of an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2 A of the CPC. The origin of these series of litigation dates back to 17.8.2007 when at the time of proceeding of the plaint and the injunction petition, learned Civil Judge Senior Division No.3, Kamrup passed the order in Misc. (J) Case No. 103 of 2007 directing the parties to maintain status quo ante. This order was passed while issuing the notice to the opposite parties of the case on application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While passing the order directing the parties to maintain status quo ante, the learned trial court did not feel it necessary to specify a date as on which date the order would refer.

2. Subsequently the same plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 CPC alleging that the aforesaid order dated 17.8.2007 has been violated by the opposite as hooligans and anti-national accompanied by the opposite parties No. 1 to 5 had criminally trespassed into the suit land and occupied the Ek chali house. The opposite party on being summoned appeared and not only denied the allegation leveled but also claimed to have been in possession of the suit land much before the injunction order was passed. Both the sides led evidence to prove their respective cases and the learned trial court thereafter by passing the order dated 5.5.2010 in the Misc. case 119 of 2007 registered under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC held that no case of willful disobedience of the order of injunction could be made out by the petitioner. In the result Misc. case was dismissed on contest. In so doing the learned trial court observed that the order passed is not specific in what respect direction to maintain status quo was given.

3. This order dated 5.5.2010 came under challenge before the learned Additional District Judge at the instance of the petitioner in Misc. Appeal No.10 of 2010. The learned first appellate duly considered the law holding the field and referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India -vs- Sukh Deo Prasad reported in (2009) 5 SCC 665. The learned first appellate court on perusal of the aforesaid judgment found that the following ingredients are to be satisfied for securing punishment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code:

(i) that there was an injunction order.

(ii) that by the order direction was given to the person against whom the application is made, to do or desist from doing some specific thing or act, and

(iii) that there was disobedience or breach of that order.

4. The learned first appellate court was also of the view that Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC is panel is nature and so it has to be considered in a strict manner. The order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the learned trial court asking the parties to maintain status quo ante was not specific at all. It did not make any mention on which date the order should be referred to and as to what should be the nature of the possession. Having considered the evidence recorded by the parties on record, the learned first appellate court by his judgment and order dated 24.8.2011 dismissed the appeal holding that no case for proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2 A has been made out. These two orders have been called in question in the present revision petition.

5. I have heard Mr. D Nandi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M.D. Chouhdury, learned counsel for the opposite party. I have perused the records of the Misc. (J) Case as well the Misc. Appeal to understand the respective parties.

6. Mr. D. Nandi, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that as on the date of passing of the order of injunction dated 17.8.2007, the petitioners were very much in possession of the suit land but the