Johorul Sk vs Saifudding Sk. & Ors

Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.

By virtue of the impugned order, the trial court refused to grant police help to implement an order of status quo primarily on the premise that there

have been contradictory submissions made on behalf of both sides as to their respective alleged possession in respect of the suit property.

Upon hearing both sides and going through the records, it is evident that initially an ad interim order of injunction was passed, restraining the defendant

nos. 1 to 5 from disturbing the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff in any way whatsoever. It is further found in such ad interim order that

the name of the plaintiff/petitioner stood duly recorded in the relevant document with respect to the suit property. Subsequently, such injunction

application, on which the ad interim order of injunction was passed, was disposed of directing both sides to maintain status quo in respect of nature,

character and possession of the suit property till disposal of the suit.

It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the initial status of the suit property as regards possession had not changed when the final order of status

quo was passed and, as such, police help ought to have been granted.

In controverting such arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties argues that the opposite parties are bargadars in respect of the suit property

and have been so by cultivating the land at least for the last forty years. It is further submitted that no police help could be granted in terms of the

order of status quo, which is vague as regards nature, character and possession of the suit property.

It appears from the submissions of both sides that the nature and character of the suit property, as a cultivable land, is apparently not disputed by

either side. As regards possession, the order of status quo passed while disposing of the injunction application it is records no change of circumstance

from July 27, 2017 when the initial ad interim order of injunction was passed, specifically regarding the possession of the plaintiff/petitioner in respect

of the suit property.

Hence, the order of status quo has to be read as one passed to protect the possession of the plaintiff, as found in the initial order of ad interim order of

injunction, in the absence of any specific finding as to such possession having been altered in the meantime and/or any specific recording in the status

quo order as to the opposite party having produced some further evidence to dispel the presumption of possession of the petitioner. In the

circumstances, the trial court refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law in rejecting police help application of the petitioner.

Accordingly, C.O. No. 2789 of 2018 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned order and directing the Officer-in-Charge of Tarapith

Police Station to provide the petitioner with police help to implement the status quo order dated December 22, 2017, read in conjunction with the

injunction order dated July 27, 2017, both passed in Title Suit No. 219 of 2017, pending in the First Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Rampurhat,

District-Birbhum.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.