SHRI VINIT TIBREWALA Vs. SRI BIDYA KANTA UPADHYAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P Sundi, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) In this application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur in Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2010 under Order XXXIX Rule 2 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure has been called in question.

(3.) The present petitioner as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 46 of 2006 in the court of learned Munsiff No.1 at Tezpur praying for his declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession along with other prayers. In the said suit he also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for injunction and the learned trial court passed an order on 25.9.2006 directing the parties to maintain status -quo with respect to the suit property. It is the case of the opposite parties here that prior to institution of the suit there was a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before Executive Magistrate at Tezpur wherein an order of attachment has been passed. The said order of attachment was subsequently vacated. The opposite parties thereafter preferred a revision petition before the High Court and thereupon the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate was stayed. It is the case of the opposite parties that after interim order was passed by the court, the attachment order passed by the Executive Magistrate stood automatically renewed and so the plaintiff /present petitioner ought not to have disturbed the status quo of the suit land but he did so with effect from 4.7.2007 by making construction on the suit land. Under such circumstances, he became guilty under order XXXIX Rule 2 A of the CPC and became liable for punishment.