The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to exercise its discretion under Section 151 C.P.C. to remedy the prejudice caused to the applicant when the remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. may not be sufficient to maintain the order passed.

JUDGMENT

K.R. Mohapatra, J. - This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.

2. Heard Mr. Digambar Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the contesting Opposite Party No.1.

3. The Petitioners in this CMP seek to assail the order dated 28th January, 2021 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak in CMA No. 226 of 2020 (arising out of C.S. No. 178-I of 2017) filed under Section 151 C.P.C.

4. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that C.S. No. 178-I of 2017 has been filed for partition. During pendency of the suit, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak vide order on 15th January, 2018 in I.A. No. 563 of 2017 directed both the parties to maintain status quo over Lot No. 5 of Schedule 'GA' property pertaining to Khata No.150, Plot No.307 to an extent of Ac.0.10 decimals, Plot No.308 to an extent of Ac.0.04 decimals and Plot No.309 to an extent of Ac.0.06 decimals under Barapada mouza in the district of Bhadrak (for short 'the suit land'). Subsequently, alleging that the PetitionersDefendants have violated the order of status quo on 13th March, 2020, an application in CMA No. 226 of 2020 was filed and learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 28th January, 2021 directed the I.I.C., Bhadrak Rural P.S. to implement the order dated 15th January, 2018 passed in I.A. No. 563 of 2017. It is his submission that when the Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.1 has already filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. alleging violation of the aforesaid order of status quo by the Defendants-Petitioners, a petition under Section 151 C.P.C. is not maintainable. He further submits that implementation of order of injunction/status quo with police assistance is foreign to the provisions of the C.P.C. and cannot be resorted to in a petition under Section 151 C.P.C. It is his submission that hearing of the suit has not yet commenced and at this stage, in order to harass the Defendants-Petitioners, a petition under Section 151 C.P.C. has been filed and the impugned order has been passed. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.

5. Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the contesting Opposite Party No.1 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Subal Kumar Dey -v-Purna Chandra Giri, (1989) 1 OrissaLR 398, submits that a petition under Section 151 C.P.C. is maintainable for implementation of the order of injunction/status quo. It is his submission that when learned trial Court has exercised its judicial discretion in granting a relief for implementation of the order of status quo, the same should not be interfered with by this Court when there is no illegality and irregularity in the same. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the CMP.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadrak vide his order dated 15.01.2018 has directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land. The said order is still in force. There is an allegation by the Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.1 that the Defendants-Petitioners on 13.03.2020 in utter disrespect to the order of status quo tried to shut down all the shop rooms existing over the suit land and evict the tenants. The matter was informed to the police and due to intervention the police, the Defendants-Petitioners could not evict them. They are, however, constantly trying to evict the shopkeepers by using muscle power. The Plaintiff-Opposite Party No.1, however, has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. alleging violation of the order of status quo. But, since the Defendants-Petitioners are allegedly making constant attempts to violate the order of status quo, the relief under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. may not be sufficient to maintain the order passed. The Court in the guise of exercising power under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. cannot be a mute spectator to its