AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anuj Singh, J:.
None appears on behalf of the petitioner even on the second call. The State is also not represented.
Mr. Sankarsan SarkarAdvocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 8.
The instant writ petition was last taken up for hearing on August 17, 2026. Since the petitioner did not appear on the last date, this court by an order dated August 17, 2026 directed the respondent no. 8 to inform the petitioner that the matter would be taken up for hearing on August 21, 2026 and shall appear fairly and the top of the list.
The respondent no. 8 files an affidavit of service which is taken on record. It appears from the said affidavit of service that the said order dated August 17, 2026 was duly communicated to the petitioner. Despite such communication the petitioner remains unrepresented.
Although the petitioner continues to remain unrepresented, this court instead of dismissing the writ petition for default/ non-prosecution, considers it appropriate to take up the same for hearing, since the present writ petition raises an issue which frequently arises before this Court. Moreover, the instant writ petition can be disposed of on a pure question of law, without any adjudication of disputed questions of fact. The writ petition is accordingly taken up for consideration.
The writ petitioner has filed the writ petition, inter alia, praying for implementation of an order dated October 4, 2023 passed in Title Suit No. 1455 of 2023 pending before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), 3rd Court at Howrah.
It appears from the records that after the aforesaid interim order dated October 4, 2023 was passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), 3rd Court at Howrah the petitioner herein filed an application before the said trial Court seeking implementation of the said order. By a subsequent order dated November 18, 2024 the Ld. Trial Court directed the Officer-in-Charge, of the concerned Police Station to look into the matter and ensure implementation of the order of injunction dated October 4, 2023 passed by the said Court.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 8 informs this court that the order dated November 18, 2024 was challenged before this court in a revisional application, being C.O no. 827 of 2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By an order dated April 2, 2025 passed in C.O no. 827 of 2025 a co-ordinate Bench stayed the operation of the said order dated November 18, 2024. By a subsequent order dated June 24, 2025 the said interim order was made absolute until disposal of C.O no. 827 of 2025. The revisional application is said to be still pending final adjudication.
On perusal of the prayers made in the writ petition, this court finds that prayers (a) and (b) of the Writ petition seek implementation of the said orders dated October 4, 2023 and November 18, 2024 passed in Title Suit No. 1455 of 2023 between the petitioner and the private respondent. Thus, the relief sought in the writ petition arises directing out the pending Civil Suit and relates to implementation of an interlocutory order passed therein. The suit is contested and awaits final adjudication of rival contention of the parties before the Trial Court.
The question which therefore arises in the present writ petition is whether this court ought to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct implementation of an order passed in a pending civil suit, particularly, when the order subsequently passed by the Civil Court directing police assistance is itself the subject matter of pending revisional application, and the operation whereof has been stayed by a co-ordinate Bench under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The law on the subject is no longer res integra.In Sohan Lal v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 529, the Supreme Court held that writ proceedings are not appropriate where grant of relief would require adjudication or enforcement of rival private civil rights and that the parties must ordinarily pursue their remedies before competent Civil Court. In Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61, particularly Paragraph 6 thereof, the Supreme Court held that Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies available to parties by way of civil suit. Merely impleading the police or public authority does not convert a private dispute relating to immovable property into a public law proceeding. Further, in Meera Chauhan Vs. Harsh Bishnoi, (2007) 12 SCC 201, paragraphs 14 to 18 the Supreme Court recognized the inherent powers with the Civil Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to preserve the subject matter of the proceedings, restore the parties to the position which prevailed before violation of any injunction order and in an appropriate case also direct the police authorities to give assistance for due implementation of such order. Thus, the court which passed the injunction is competent to consider and remedy its alleged breach.
The aforesaid principles were reiterated in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami DharmanandaTheerthaPadar, (2006) 4 SCC 501, paragraph 13 and Roshina T. V. Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329, paragraphs 13 to 16. The Supreme Court held the disputes relatingto ownership, possession and other property rights between private parties are required to be determined in a civil proceeding and that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be permitted to replace their remedies available under general law.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the aforesaid principles of law, this Court finds that the petitioner has already approached the competent civil court for implementation of the injunction order dated October 4, 2023. The Civil Court considered the application and passed an order dated November 18, 2024 in the suit directing the police assistance. The said order is now under challenge in C.O no. 827 of 2025 and its operation has been stayed by the court.
In such circumstances, issuing a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to implement the order dated October 4, 2023 wouldin substance, grant afresh the very police assistance directed by the order dated November 18, 2024, the operation of which has been stayed by a coordinate Bench. Such a direction would circumvent the pending revisional proceedings and render the interim protection granted therein nugatory. This conclusion is further fortified in RadheyShyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, paragraphs 27 to 29, wherein the Supreme Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct.
This court further finds that no independent breach of statutory or public duty severable from pending civil suit and orders passed therein has been demonstrated by the writ petitioner. The relief sought is entirely dependent on interlocutory orders passed in the Civil Suit. The petitioner therefore, must peruse the remedies available for the Civil Court or seek appropriate relief in C.O no. 827 of 2025 pending between the parties.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition W.P.A 253 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed, as misconceived.
It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the claims of either party in Title Suit No.1455 of 2023 nor has it expressed its opinion regarding the subsistence,scope or effect of the order dated October 4, 2023. All questions arising in the Civil Suit and C.O no. 827 of 2025 pending before this court are left open to be decided by the respective Courts in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observations containedin this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.