The court emphasized that the remedy available to the aggrieved party for violation of an order is to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. or to file a contempt petition for initiating the contempt proceedings against the said party.

Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Challenge in this revision petition is to the impugned order dated 28th October, 1996, whereby the trial Court has ordered that necessary police help be given to the plaintiffs so as to implement the order of status quo with regard to the suit property.

2. The plaintiff/respondent had brought this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land comprised in Khasra Nos. 159/1/2 measuring 25 bighas 6 biswas, which is a part of the suit land. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. was also filed. With the consent of the parties, the trial Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the suit land till the decision of the main suit as per order dated 16th February, 1995 - Annexure P-1. Later on, the plaintiff moved an application for providing him police help in order to implement the order dated 16th February, 1995, Annexure P-1. The application was resisted by the defendant now petitioner. However, it was allowed vide order under challenge in this revision petition.

3. The only substantive question which needs consideration in this civil revision is whether the Court can pass any order providing police help for the implementation of the order requiring the parties to maintain status quo when the order has been passed with the consent of the parties.

4. Be that as it may, that the defendant had tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff/respondent as stated above that the term status quo specifically indicates that question of possession is in fluid stage and it has not been finally decided as to which of the party is in possession of the suit land. To establish this fact, the parties are required to lead the evidence in support of their respective contentions.

5. This apart, if one of the parties had violated the order by disturbing the possession of the other, then remedy available to the aggrieved party, is to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. or to file a contempt petition for initiating the contempt proceedings against the said party. The plaintiff/respondent has already availed this remedy by way of filing the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. Although, the learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on P. Shanker Rao v. Smt. B. Susheela, AIR 2000 Andhra Pradesh 214, that it is not necessary to take recourse under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code, but once a party has already taken recourse to that procedure, then it cannot be allowed to raise an objection on these terms. In P. Shanker Raos case (supra), the defendant/petitioner was restrained from evicting the plaintiff/respondent from the suit property. Whereas in the case in hand, the parties were simply asked to maintain status quo. In The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Gondal and others v. Girdharbhai Ramjibhai Chhaniyara, JT 1995(5) SC 591 cited by learned counsel for the petitioner under para 8, it has been observed that since the right of the respondents is still in embryo, Order 39 Rule 2 is in-applicable and enforcement thereof is unthinkable.

6. As a logical corollary to this consideration, it must be held that the order under revision, needs to be nullfiled, the same being illegal and perverse. It is hereby set aside after allowing this Civil Revision.

Revision allowed.