IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 3086 of 2010 1. MOTILAL SONAR S/O LATE GOPAL SONAR R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.O. AND P.S. BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR Versus 1. GANESH HALWAI S/O LATE MANKI HALWAI R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.S.+P.O.- BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 2. LALJEE HALWAI S/O LATE MANKI HALWAI R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.S.+P.O.- BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 3. MOST. BINA DEVI W/O LATE UMA SHANKAR HALWAI R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.O. AND P.S. BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 4. PINTU KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE UMA SHANKAR HALWAI R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.O. AND P.S. BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 5. CHINTU KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE UMA SHANKAR HALWAI R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.O. AND P.S. BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 6. TINKU KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE UMA SHANKAR HALWAI R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.O. AND P.S. BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 7. MINTU KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE UMA SHANKAR HALWAI R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.O. AND P.S. BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 8. PINKI KUMARI MINOR D/O LATE UMA SHANKAR HALWAI THROUGH SMT. BINA DEVI, MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.O. AND P.S. BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 9. RUBI KUMARI MINOR D/O LATE UMA SHANKAR HALWAI THROUGH SMT. BINA DEVI, MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.O. AND P.S. BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 10. SWITI KUMARI MINOR D/O LATE UMA SHANKAR HALWAI THROUGH SMT. BINA DEVI, MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.O. AND P.S. BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 11. SILPI KUMARI MINOR D/O LATE UMA SHANKAR HALWAI THROUGH SMT. BINA DEVI, MOTHER, NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND R/O NALBANDH TOLI, BUXAR, P.O. AND P.S. BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 12. THE STATE OF BIHAR 13. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, BUXAR TOWN POLICE STATION, BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR ----------- 2 11.05.2010 The petitioner was a plaintiff in the Court below. In the suit, in 1996, it is alleged that an injunction, in the shape of status quo, was ordered on the basis of petitioner’s possession of the suit premises and the defendants were restrained from interfering with the same. Recently on 09.10.2009, the plaintiff-petitioner alleges that the defendants broke a wall from inside the shop premises, threw out all the goods of the petitioner and put a lock on the premises. Seeing the flagrant violation of the injunction order, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application in terms of 2 Order 38 Rule 2A, CPC in the Court below being Miscellaneous Case No 21 of 2009 in which the Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and submit a report which was done on 04.11.2009. On 21.11.2009, petitioner prayed for restitution. The trial Court, instead of proceeding in the matter of seeing whether the injunction had been violated and whether there is a need for restitution, has virtually held that all these are questions of fact and, as such, it is better if the suit itself is first decided. I have heard Shri S S Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner who challenges the said order of the trial Court. Deciding a suit is one thing. Deciding a violation of injunction is another. The moment a person claims violation of an injunction order, the Court must treat the matter as serious. It is a matter of rule of law and the Court should decide this issue urgently and with all seriousness. I need not point out the ineffects of avoiding to decide this issue. People would, with impunity, violate injunction orders and then if ultimately they succeed in the suit itself, no action would be taken against them. This would give incentive to people to violate, with impunity, the injunction order. The rule of law would collapse. Thus, before deciding the suit on merits, the Court would be bound to decide the violation of injunction and the question of restitution. If it is found, as a matter of fact, that petitioner has been dispossessed then it would be a matter of violation of the interim order, as noted above and Court would be bound to restore possession to the petitioner. This is so because in the order of injunction itself, it is noted that the possession of the petitioner is there. Even the report of the 3 Advocate Commissioner, as appointed by the Court, is there on the record. Court has to consider the same. It cannot brush aside answering these inconvenient issues because that would take time. That is no excuse for ignoring a violation, if there is. The question is of majesty of Court and rule of law. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and direct the Court below while proceeding with the suit to proceed with enquiry and determine the question of violation of the injunction and question of restitution which question must be decided within two months from production of a copy of this order and the trial would continue so far as the main issues are concerned. Thus, the trial Court would first determine the question of violation of injunction and the question of restitution and pass final orders in respect thereof and it is only then it would proceed to decide the issue in the suit. This application is, thus, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)