The duty of the court to bring back the parties to the original position when there is a violation of the injunction order, and the exercise of inherent power under Section 151 of CPC to maintain status quo ante.

A. S. NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) "does law permit a person to retain a thing done contrary to an order of restraint passed by a Court?"is the question which is posed in this Civil Review.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts are that the opposite party as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 73 of 1985 in the Court of the then Civil judge, redesignated as the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur praying for partition of the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. Along with the plaint, a petition under order 39, Rules I and 2 of the Code of Civil procedure was also filed praying to restrain the defendants and others from constructing any new house over the suit properties appertaining to Khata No. 327, plot No. 1748 and plot No. 1878 in Mouza Nahana, P. S. Binjharpur, District-Cuttack. The said petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 74 of 1985. The learned trial Court by order dated 16th May, 1985 passed an order of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction over the suit land or putting up any new fence removing the existing fence or trees standing over the suit land. The said order of ad interim injunction was made absolute by order dated 20th December, 1986.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, taking advantage of the fact that the Civil Courts were closed for summer vacation, the defendants took law into their own hands and violating the restraint order, forcibly raised new constructions over the suit plots up to lintel level and the plaintiff was constrained to approach the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who directed the police to see that the order of injunction was obeyed and the defendants did not proceed with the construction. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, the defendants who had scant regards for the rule of law, once again all of a sudden commenced construction and completed the half-constructed building. Aggrieved by such overt act of the defendants, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 39, Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of C. P. C. inter alia praying to take appropriate action against the defendants. The plaintiff also prayed for an order of demolition of the illegal construction made by the defendants deliberately flouting the order of injunction. The said petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 104 of 1986.

( 4 ) THE trial Court, to test the veracity of the allegations levelled, examined witnesses from both sides, deputed a Pleader Commissioner on different occasions to make local inspections and after vivid discussion of the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the evidence, both oral and documentary, and the reports of the Pleader commissioner arrived at a conclusion that the defendants had, in fact, violated the order of injunction passed by the Court and had forcibly constructed the building in question and that they were liable to be proceeded against for violation of the order of injunction. Accordingly, the trial Court passed an order directing the defendants for demolition of the entire construction made by them over the suit land in violation of the order of injunction and flouting the order of restraint, within fifteen days, failing which liberty was given to the plaintiff to demolish the same and realise the expenses from the defendants under due process of law.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the defendants filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 26 of 1997 before the additional District Judge, Jajpur. The learned;. appellate Court after discussing the facts and circumst. ances of the case and after conside the evidence, both oral and document ry and also other materials, dismissed the Miscellaneous Appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER the defendants approached this Court in Civil Revision No. 70 of 1998. This Court also by a well-discussed judgment dated 5th September, 2000 came to a categorical finding that the defendants had deliberately committed breach of the injunction order. It also obse