Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Krishnapada Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 May, 2016
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
47 10.5.16
Sc W. P. No. 7807 (W) OF 2016
------------
Krishnapada Mondal
-vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Hiranmoy Datta ........ For the Petitioner.
Ms. Aparna Ghosh ........ For the State.
Ms. Papiya Chatterjee.
........ For the Respondents No. 4, 5 & 6.
An order of status quo was passed by the civil court on 5th November, 2014 upon hearing an application for injunction filed by the petitioner in connection with T.S. No.189 of 2014. Alleging that the order was being disobeyed by the defendants, the petitioner filed an application for police help under section 151, Code of Civil Procedure. An order dated 13th January, 2015 was passed recording, inter alia, as follows :
"Perused the instant petition u/s 151 CPC and other materials on record. On perusal of records, it appears that the plaintiff makes allegations against the defendants and informed the matter to the P.S. In my view, neither party can be allowed to change the nature and character of the suit property thereof so long as the order of injunction is still in operation. Since the order of injunction is still in operation, the plaintiff's prayer for implementation of the order of injunction should be allowed.
So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petition u/s 151 of CPC filed by the plaintiff is considered and allowed."
The petitioner is aggrieved because despite making an application for police help in compliance with the order dated 13th January, 2015, the Officer-in- Charge, Sandeshkhali Police Station has not provided such assistance.
In the decision reported in Joydev Das -vs.- Khandubala Das : 2012(1) CHN (CAL) 300 it has been held as follows :
"15. It is settled law that section 151 of the Code is not to be resorted to when the Code provides a remedy for the aggrieved party. An order of injunction, if not complied with or obeyed by a party bound by such order, may be executed in terms of section 36 of the Code read with order 21 Rule 32 thereof. Also, the party complaining of violation or disobedience may pursue the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code. True it is that an aggrieved party may not have immediate relief by pursuing the remedy of execution. It is equally true that although Order 39 Rule 2A deals with the subject of 2 imposition of penalty on the party guilty of violation or disobedience of an order of Court, it does not provide any relief to the party in whose favour the Court has passed the order. It is, therefore, recognized that in appropriate cases where (i) facts are not in dispute, and (ii) the Court is satisfied that a party bound by an order of injunction has violated and/or disobeyed the same, (iii) thereby causing grave and serious injury to his adversary, and (iv) ends of justice demand the Court's interference for granting immediate relief to the party suffering the injury, that recourse to section 151 of the Code may be hand for setting things right."
The order of the learned judge does not conform to the tests laid down in the aforesaid decision and, therefore, on this writ petition no order need be made as prayed for by the petitioners.
However, since the orders dated 5th November, 2014 and13th January, 2015 and 20th April, 2015 have not been questioned by the defendants in the suit before an appropriate forum, it shall be open to the petitioner to seek execution of the order of injunction by filing an appropriate application before the learned judge or even to urge the court to initiate proceedings for contempt.
With such observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Needless to observe, all points are left open to be urged before the learned judge.
There shall be no order for costs.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Dipankar Datta, J.)