Courts must ensure the enforcement of status quo orders, exercising inherent powers as necessary, especially when other remedies are inadequate.

ORDER :

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

2. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this CMP seeks to assail the order dated 19^th May, 2022 (Annexure-4) passed in C.M.A. No.112 of 2021 (arising out of I.A. No.071 of 2020), whereby learned 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Cuttack rejected an application under Section 151 C.P.C. filed by him to implement the order dated 20^th January, 2021 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2020 (arising out of C.S. No.477 of 2020) through the Inspector-in-Charge, Dargha Bazar P.S., Cuttack.

3. Office note indicates that notice on Opposite Party No.1 has returned un-served with a postal endorsement 'Addressee left'. Notices on Opposite Party Nos.6 and 7 returned un-served as they refused to accept the same. Further, tracking report of Postal Department discloses that notices on Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 and 8 to 11 have been delivered to them on 30^th August, 2022. Thus, notices on Opposite Party Nos.2 to 11 are treated to be sufficient.

4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in spite of service of notice on Opposite Party No.1, he did not contest either the interim application or the C.M.A. No.112 of 2021. Hence, the CMP can be disposed of in his absence. Considering such fact, this Court proceeds with final disposal of CMP.

5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that along with the plaint, the Petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. in I.A. No.1 of 2020. Said application was allowed in part on contest vide order dated 20^th January, 2021 with the following direction:

"The interim application is allowed in part on contest but without any cost. The petitioners as well as the O.Ps are directed to maintain status quo over the I.A. schedule land i.e. Khata No.254, plot no.622 of mouza-Cuttack Sahar, Unit No.11, Odia Bazar till disposal of the suit."

In spite of the aforesaid order, the Opposite Parties are proceeding with construction over the suit land, i.e. Plot No.622 under Khata No.254 situated in mouza Cuttack Sahar, Unit No.11, Odia Bazar. As such, the Petitioner filed two applications, one under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. in I.A. No.113 of 2021 and another under Section 151 C.P.C. in C.M.A. No.112 of 2021. The petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A is pending for adjudication before learned trial Court. Since the Opposite Parties proceeded to make construction over the suit land, the Petitioner moved the petition under Section 151 C.P.C. and prayed to direct the Inspector-in-Charge, Dargha Bazar Police Station, Cuttack to implement the order of status quo. Learned trial Court rejected the application holding that since the Petitioner has alternative remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C., an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for implementation of the order of status quo is not maintainable. Hence, he rejected the said application.

6. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that learned trial Court has duty to see that the order of status quo is respected. It cannot be mute spectator to the order of status quo being violated on the plea that the Petitioner has a remedy under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C.. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Manoj Manjari Mohapatra and another v- Sri Kapila @ Kapilendra Mohapatra and another in CMP No.128 of 2021, wherein it is held as under:

"8. Thus, the Court has also the power to restore possession in exercise of power under Section 151 C.P.C. in the event a party is dispossessed in utter violation of order of injunction/status quo. But, while exerci