13.06.2025 Sl. No.307(DL)

Ct. No.29 srm C.O. No. 3930 of 2024 Baburam Halder Versus Binoy Halder & Ors.

Mr. Lakshminath Bhyattacharya …for the Petitioner. Syed Nurul Arefin, Mr. Sanju Agarwal …for the Opposite Parties.

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

Being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 2nd August, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3^rd Court, Baruipur, South 24- Parganas in Title Suit No.452 of 2021, the present application has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff herein. By the order impugned, learned court below rejected the plaintiff/petitioner’s prayer for police help made under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 5^th February, 2024 for implementation of the order of injunction.

It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner as plaintiff filed the aforesaid Title Suit No.452 of 2021 with a prayer for declaration and permanent injunction so that the defendants cannot enter into such property or cannot disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction to that effect and the defendants/opposite parties herein filed written objection against the injunction application. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties was pleased to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and also restrained the defendants not to change the nature and character of the suit property till the disposal of the suit.

The allegation ventilated herein by the plaintiff/petitioner is that in spite of the order of injunction, the defendants/opposite parties herein threatening to enter in the suit property and to excavate soil and for which he lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bauirpur Police District and also before the SDPO, Baruipur to take necessary steps so that defendant/opposite party cannot violate the order of injunction, dated 10^th August, 2023. Since the police did not take any action, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for police help to carry out the direction made in the order dated 10^th August, 2023. The defendants/opposite parties also filed written objection against the same. However the learned court below by the impugned order rejected the plaintiff’s aforesaid prayer.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate that since there is an order of injunction it should have been obeyed and for that necessary order regarding police help ought to have been passed by him. He further submits that as the defendants/opposite parties were trying to excavate soil from the said property and also tried to disturb the plaintiff/petitioner’s possession violating the order of injunction, he is entitled to get protection through the police authority.

Mr. Arefin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties raised objection and contended that unless the right, title, interest of the parties over the property is determined finally by way of trial the prayer made by the petitioner is premature and if it is allowed it will cause prejudice to the defendants/opposite parties’ interest. He further submits that there is nothing to show that the defendants have done anything in violation of the order of injunction. He further submits that even if it is taken for granted that the defendants made any violation of order of injunction the appropriate remedy to the plaintiff/petitioner is to prefer a contempt application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code and not to pray for police help before the trial court. In this context, he also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Polavarapu Nagamani & Ors.

vs. Parchuri Koteshwara Rao & Ors. reported in

2009 SCC OnLine AP 754 I ha