The court established the principle that it has the inherent power under section 151, CPC to undo the wrong committed by violators of injunction orders and to restore status quo ante.

Headnote:
Injunction - Disputed Residential House - Order 39, Rule 2A, CPC - Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skiper Construction Company (P) Ltd. - Mohammad Idris and Another Vs. Rustam Jehangir Babuji and Others - Clarke v. Chadburn (1985) 1 All ER 211 - Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. S. Suppiah and Others - Sujit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun and Others
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over a residential house between a mother and her son and daughter-in-law. The appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the mother, directing the defendants to vacate the house and remove their articles within one month.
Finding of the Court:

The appellate court found that the ad-interim order of injunction was not ambiguous and that the court had the inherent power under section 151, CPC to undo the wrong committed by the violators of the injunction order.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the possession of the disputed residential house and the violation of the injunction order. The court also considered the exercise of inherent power under section 151, CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in the cases of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skiper Construction Company (P) Ltd., Mohammad Idris and Another Vs. Rustam Jehangir Babuji and Others, Clarke v. Chadburn, Century Flour Mills Ltd. Vs. S. Suppiah and Others, and Sujit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun and Others to justify its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the direction issued by the appellate court to vacate the house and remove the articles was deemed legal and justified, with a clarification regarding the removal of specific articles mentioned in the suit.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The court affirmed its inherent power under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to rectify wrongs committed by violators of injunction orders and to restore the previous status quo (!) (!) .
The case involved a dispute over a residential property between a mother and her son and daughter-in-law, with the appellate court directing the defendants to vacate the property and remove their articles within one month (!) (!) .
The initial injunction order was not ambiguous, but the appellate court recognized its inherent authority to undo violations of such orders, including directing the removal of articles brought into the property in violation of court orders (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the direction to vacate the property and remove articles applies only to articles brought into the house in violation of the injunction, and not necessarily to all articles listed in the plaint, which will be determined in the ongoing suit (!) (!) .
The exercise of inherent power under section 151, CPC, is justified and necessary to prevent the perpetuation of wrongdoing and to uphold the integrity of court orders, especially in cases where violations occur (!) .
The final decision dismissed the writ petition, confirming that the appellate court's order was legal and justified, with the clarification that the removal direction pertains only to the articles introduced in violation of the injunction (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

ORDER

M.M. Das, J. - This writ petition has been filed against an order passed in FAO No. 5/22 of 2009/2008 by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Puri on 26-2-2010, by which the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Puri, while allowing the appeal filed by the Plaintiff directed the present Petitioners, who are Defendants in the suit, to vacate the disputed residential house and to remove the articles they have in the same within one month from the date of passing of the said order until the dispute as to the right, title and interest stand determined in the suit i.e. C.S. No. 148 of 2005. Facts giving rise to the appellate order are that the opposite party, who is the mother of the Petitioner No. 1, has filed a suit seeking relief for passing a decree for permanent injunction restraining the present Petitioners from entering into the disputed property, which is a residential house, and a decree for mandatory injunction directing the Defendants (writ Petitioners) to remove their articles from the said house, which has been described in the Schedule 'B' of the plaint.

2. An application under Order 39, Rule 3, CPC along with an application for interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC has been filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff against the opposite parties-Defendants to hear the injuntion application ex parte, being numbered as I.A. No. 109 of 2005. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimapara in the said I.A. No. 109 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 148 of 2005 considering the urgency of the matter heard the Petitioner ex parte and passed an ad-interim ex parte order restraining the opposite parties-Defendants (writ Petitioners) from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner over the suit property till the date of filing of the objection by them in the interim application and issued a show cause notice calling upon them to show cause as to why the ad interim injunction as issued ex parte shall not be made absolute. Thereafter, the Plaintiff complied with the provisions under Order 39, Rule 3(a) and (b), CPC Another interim application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC was filed, being CMA No. 74 of 2006, alleging violation of the order of injunction. The learned trial Court upon hearing the said application, on examination of the witnesses, came to the conclusion that if, at all, it is believed that the opposite parties were staying with the Petitioner in the said house much prior to the alleged occurrence, then it cannot be said that they violated the order of the Court and that no specific order was passed injuncting the opposite parties from entering into the house standing over the suit land for which the order is ambiguous in nature and rejected the said application filed by the Plaintiff. Against the said order, the Plaintiff preferred an appeal being FAO No. 5/22 of 2009/2008, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment passed on 26-2-2010 by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Puri. The learned appellate Court, considering the case of the parties and the materials on record came to the conclusion that the ad-interim order of injunction is not ambiguous in nature and that the Court has inherent power u/s 151, CPC to undo the wrong committed by the violators in respect of the injunction order. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed directing the writ Petitioners, who are Defendants, to vacate the disputed residential house and to remove the articles they have in the same within one month from the date of passing of the order.

3. The suit being between the mother in one hand and the son and daughter-in-law on the other, this Court made an attempt to settle the matter amicably by calling upon them to attend the Court personally. However, the parties did not agree with the same and ultimately the matter was taken up for final disposal.

4. Miss. Ratho, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the learned trial Court was correct in holding that the order of injunction is ambiguous and only it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(Ori) 726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSAM.M. Das, J.DIPTI RANJAN SAHOO AND ANOTHER - APPELLANTVersusNALINI KUMARI SAHOO - RESPONDENTWrit Petition No. 7686 of 2010Decided On : 22-09-2010

The court established the principle that it has the inherent power under section 151, CPC to undo the wrong committed by violators of injunction orders and to restore status quo ante.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
M.M. Das, J.
DIPTI RANJAN SAHOO AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
NALINI KUMARI SAHOO - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition No. 7686 of 2010
Decided On : 22-09-2010