DEEPA DAS Vs. RUPA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.19 dated September 3, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fifth Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.56 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application dated May 26, 2009 filed by the plaintiff for police help.

(2.) The short fact is that the petitioner instituted a suit for partition and that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction. The learned Trial Judge directed the defendants/opposite parties to maintain status quo with regard to the nature and character of the suit property. After passing of such order, the petitioner went to her native place in Bihar in the month of August, 2008. But after return, she was surprised to see that one padlock was put on the main entrance gate of the suit property. The petitioner has no other place to stay. Accordingly, she filed an application dated May 26, 2009 directing the O.C., Kasba P.S. to allow the plaintiff to enter into the suit property. That petition was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, she has filed this application.

(3.) Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the petitioner instituted the suit for partition of the property, as described in the schedule of the plaint. At the time of filing of the suit, she filed an application for temporary injunction and by the order no.2 dated April 16, 2008, the learned Trial Judge directed both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the nature and character of the suit property, as it stood on that day till May 16, 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for police help on the ground that she was not allowed to make her entry into the suit property. This fact clearly shows that the petitioner is out of possession of the suit property and therefore, he was required to take necessary steps for recovery of possession. Moreover, if the order of injunction is violated by the opposite parties, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly lay down the procedure for violation of such order and this is the provision of the C.P.C. which the plaintiff is required to do so. Alternatively, it can be stated that if the petitioner was in possession of the suit property and if she was dispossessed from the said property, she was required to seek for amendment of the plaint.