Advocates:
['M/S BHAKTAHARI MOHANTY', '', 'D P MOHANTY', 'M PAL', 'T K MOHANTY', 'R K NAYAK', 'P K SWAIN']

CMP No.1907 of 2016

21.02.2017

Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the learne

d trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo. Opposite parties created disturbanc

e whereafter an application under Section 151 CPC to implement the order. Learned trial court

rejected the same on untenable and unsupportable grounds. He further submits that the Court ha

s ample jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to implement its order.

Learned trial court has rejected the application and assigned the following re

asons;

Heard from both the sides. Perused the petition, objection and the case record. On perusal thi

s court found that the plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants for declaration,

partition and permanent injunction. It is pertinent here to mention that in I.A 14/2013 the pa

rties to the misc. case are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the case land till d

isposal of the suit. It is also pertinent here to mention that vide order dated 08.01.2013 in

I.A 24 of 2013 as the court held urgency and held that the suit property needs to be protected

, this court directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property. Then on

25.06.2013 the plaintiffs/petitioners filed I.A. 519 of 2013 under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC all

eging that the O.Ps. have violated the status quo order passed by the court. The said misc. ca

se is pending and has not yet been disposed of. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has r

elied upon a decision in the case of Apsarun Begum & others Vrs. Sk. Gulam Nabi and others, re

ported in 2014 (1) CLR -1069, wherein it is held that Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 1

15 and 151-I.A. under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 in which an ex parte order for maintenance of stat

us quo was passed Application under section 151, CPC filed by the plaintiffpetitioners for imp

lementation of the order of status quo by the local police rejected Held, revision lies again

st the order and writ petition is not maintainable. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 39 Rul

e 1 & 2 pending interim order of status quo passed petition under Order 39 Rule 2 alleging

violation of status quo order pending petition under Section 151, CPC for implementation of

the order of status quo by the police can not be entertained. In appropriate cases, Civil Cour

t has the power to issue suitable directions to police officials as servants of law to extent

their aid and assistance in the execution of decrees and orders of Civil Courts or in implemen

ting an order of injunction passed by it. Ordering police protection has got serious consequen

ce, impinging on the rights of the parties. Police aid is not to be granted simultaneously wit

h an order of injuction. If a party has already taken recourse to Order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC alleg

ing violation of order of status quo, the order granting police help for implementation of the

status quo order is not permissible reason being when the order of status quo is passed, the

possession is in fluid stage and it is not finally decided as to which of the party is in poss

ession. To establish the fact, the parties are required to lead evidence in support of their r

espective contentions. If one of the parties violates the order of status quo, remedy availabl

e is to file application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Now the question, which comes for consid

eration is if there is violation of the status quo order, remedy is available under the Code o

f Civil Procedure to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. In R.N. Dey and others v

. Bhagyabati Pramanik and others (2004) SCC 400, it is held that the weapon of the contempt is

not to be used in abundance of misused. Normally it cannot be used for execution of decree an

d implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Under such f

acts and circu