IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.171 of 2025 Aparajita Pattnaik …. Petitioner Mr. B. C. Panda, Advocate -Versus- The IIC, Sea Beach Police Station, Puri and another …. Opposite parties Mr. J. Pattnaik, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 03.04.2025 03. 1. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. In fact, Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel and his associates enters appearance today and files Vakalatnama, which is accepted and taken on record. 2. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order under Annexure-8 passed in connection with CMA No.146 of 2024 arising out of C.S. No.531 of 2021 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri, whereby, an application under Section 151 CPC seeking implementation of the order of status quo with the assistance of police was denied. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of the Apex Court in Meera Chauhan Vrs. Harsh Bishnoi and another (2007) 12 SCC 201 to contend that the order of status quo as has been directed vide Annexure-5 in FAO No.26/29 of 2022 is required to be implemented with the assistance of the local police, notwithstanding, initiation of a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Referring to the above decision, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no bar for a Court to implement an interim order even when action under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is pending for decision. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that since there is no any mischief caused to the petitioner and in any case, a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is pending before the learned court below, there is no need or any requirement for implementation of the order of status quo i.e. Annexure-5. 4. In course of hearing, an affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed and the same is perused. The Apex Court in Meera Chauhan (supra) held and observed that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of such an order, the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to the issuance of the injunction order to give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for such implementation. In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioner is that opposite party No.2 is likely to change the nature and character of the suit in order to defeat her interest as she is in occupation and use of the first floor of the residential building. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 denies any such conduct causing mischief in order to destroy the interest of the petitioner. 5. Considering the submissions as above and in view of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner and having regarding to the settled law laid down by the Apex Court time and again and reiterated in Meera Chauhan (supra), the Court is of the view that the status quo which has been directed by 1st Additional District Judge, Puri should be respected and duly implemented, whenever, it is felt absolutely necessary and not to be denied merely for having resorted to alternate remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. In other words, the Court is of the view that in order to prevent any future complication inter se parties pending decision in the suit, preserving the subject matter in dispute in present condition, it would be just and proper to ensure that the order of status quo to be maintained in respect of the suit schedule property and it has to be ensured with the assistance of the local police, whenever reported by either of the parties, notwithstanding, a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC having been initiated and stated to be pending disposal. Accordingly, it is ordered. 6. In the result, the CMP stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid, however, in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. 7. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K.Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer