Item- 231. sg 28-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 2945 of 2026 Emami City Association or Apartment Owners & Ors. Versus Sreetama Nandy Sen & Anr. Mr. Debojyoti Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dipankar Saha Sk. Kobir …for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an order dated 4th August, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 198 of 2024. By the order impugned, the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties praying for police help stood allowed. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order of temporary injunction dated 7th October 2024 is restricted to performance of the Durga Puja for the year 2024. He submits that an application praying for police help to perform the Durga Puja for the year 2026 taking aid of the order of temporary injunction passed permitting the Durga Puja for the year 2024, could not have been filed. Mr. Basu submits that when no order of injunction has been passed permitting the plaintiffs/opposite parties, to perform the Durga Puja for the year 2026, the learned Trial Judge ought not to have allowed the prayer for police help to assist the opposite parties in the performance of the Durga Puja for the year 2026. Mr. Basu submits that an order under Section 151 for police assistance cannot be passed in a mechanical manner and the same can be passed only if there 2 are reasonable grounds to show that the implementation of an order of injunction is not possible without serious danger to public peace. In support of such contention, he places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shivaji Shankar Jadhav and Another v. Laxman Gajanan Godbole, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 11737. He further submits that the cause of action for filing the application under Section 151 is a complaint lodged by the Durgotsav Committee and not the plaintiffs and the learned Trial Judge, without appreciating such fact, passed an order directing the police to render assistance to the plaintiffs. Affidavit of Service filed in court today is taken on record. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate, on instruction, submits that the opposite parties have been duly served with a copy of the civil revision application and the notice of upgradation has also been served. In spite of service, none appears to oppose this civil revision application. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners and their men and agents, from disturbing the plaintiffs/opposite parties from organizing the Durga Puja along with affiliated processes including Khuti Puja. The cause of action for filing the said suit, as it appears from the plaint is that on 15th May 2024, a false mass petition was submitted to the local police authority, and 3 thereafter on several dates and lastly on 3rd July 2024, when the members of the association threatened the plaintiffs and other members of the committee and tried to obstruct the process of preparing the Khuti Puja for Durgotsav of the year 2024. Such action of the defendants prompted the plaintiffs to file the suit for permanent injunction. In connection with the said suit, the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed an application for temporary injunction, and the learned Trial Judge by an order dated 11th September, 2024 passed an ad-interim order of injunction directing the defendants and their men and agents to provide space in the open ground of the housing society, Emami City, for organization of Durga Puja, and the defendants and their men and agents were further restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs from conducting the Durga Puja in the space provided to the plaintiffs for organization of Durga Puja. The said ad-interim order of injunction was made absolute by an order dated 7th October 2024 till the disposal of the suit. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate, would strenuously contend that the scope of the order of temporary injunction is only for the performance of the Durga Puja for the year 2024 and not for the subsequent years. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note that the suit was filed for a decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs from organizing the Durga Puja along with the affiliated processes including Khuti Puja. The scope of the said suit was not restricted for performance of the Durga Puja for the year 2024 but to restrain the petitioners from creating any 4 disturbance from organizing Durga Puja along with the affiliated processes. The learned Trial Judge, while passing the order dated 7th October 2024, had made the ad-interim order of injunction absolute till the disposal of the suit. It would not be out of place to point out that by the ad interim order of injunction dated 11.09.2024, the petitioners were directed to provide space in the open ground for organizing Durga Puja and the petitioners were restrained from obstructing the opposite parties from conducting the Durga Puja. To the mind of this Court, the temporary order of injunction that was directed to operate till the disposal of the suit cannot be given a restrictive meaning only for the performance of the Durga Puja for the year 2024, and not for the subsequent years. It is not in dispute that the Durga Puja for the year 2025 was also performed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties without any obstruction from the defendants/petitioners. However, in the year 2026, the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for implementation of the order through police help. In the said application, it has been specifically stated that the plaintiffs through the President of the Durgotsav Committee lodged a complaint to the local police station on 10th July 2026, which was registered as General Diary Entry No. 536/2026. Mr. Basu would vehemently contend that the order of injunction permitted only the two plaintiffs to perform the 5 Durga Puja, and no permission was granted to the Durga Puja Committee, and no order of police help could have been passed on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Durgotsav Committee. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the averments made in the plaint. In paragraph 10 of the plaint, it has been specifically stated that the plaintiffs, being the apartment owners along with other apartment owners and belonging to a particular committee, wanted to organize Durga Puja and other festivals from the onset of their possession and had requested the developers about the same. It has been further stated in the said paragraph that the plaintiffs, along with other apartment owners, took the initiative themselves to run, manage, and organize Durga Puja and other festivals themselves and for this very purpose formed a committee namely "Emami City Sarbojanin Durgotsav Committee" and had been running Durga Puja and other festivals in a cordial way and with active participation from the flat owners of a particular committee. It was further stated in the plaint that Emami City Sarbojonin Durgotsav Committee organized Saraswati Puja in the year 2024 and during such occasion the President along with the some Board of Managers tried to disrupt and halt proceedings of such Saraswati Puja and created ruckus and misbehaved with members of the Emami City Sarojonin Durgotsav Committee. It appears to this Court that the plaintiffs claimed to be the members of the Durgotsav Committee and such 6 committee was performing Durga Puja and other festivals and since an obstruction was made by the defendants for performing the Durga Puja, the suit was filed. Mr. Basu would contend that no opportunity was granted to the petitioners to file any written objection to the application under Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for police help. This Court is not inclined to accept such submission of Mr. Basu for following reasons. Record reveals that on 13th July, 2026 the records were put up and the plaintiffs filed a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with shift back petition and the learned trial judge after hearing both sides and considering the urgency, allowed the prayer thereby fixing 4th August, 2026 for hearing of the petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears from the order dated 13th July, 2026 that 4th August, 2026 was fixed for filing of the written objection by the petitioners. On a query of this Court, Mr. Basu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in his usual fairness, submits that the copy of the application under Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served upon the petitioners through electronic mail prior to passing of the order dated 13th July, 2026. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note that the learned trial judge in the impugned order dated 4th August, 2026 recorded that the petitioners instead of filing the written objection against the Section 151 application filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil 7 Procedure. Thus, the petitioners, for reason best known to them, chose not to file any written objection controverting the allegations made by the opposite parties in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and cannot turn around and contend before this Court that the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to file written objection. In the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs the plaintiffs/opposite parties have highlighted the manner in which the disturbances were created by the petitioners from performing the Durga Puja. A complaint also was lodged with the local police station alleging that the defendants are intentionally and deliberately violating the order of injunction passed in the suit. The opposite parties in the said application have also highlighted the fact that the plaintiffs started the preparation for performing the Durga Puja for this year and necessary steps have already been taken. Allegations made in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure remain uncontroverted. The learned trial judge after considering the fact that the order of injunction is still in force and has neither been modified and the festival is knocking at the door. The learned Trial Judge in order to avoid unnecessary complications in the festive reasons directed the Officer-in-Charge of the local police station to look into the matter so that the order of injunction is not violated by any of the parties. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law laid 8 down in Shivaji Shankar Jadhav (supra), that it is for the plaintiff to show that there is grave urgency and some corroboration is required to satisfy the conscience of the Court that there has been a breach of the order of injunction and it is not the case of word against word. In the case on hand, the opposite parties have lodged a complaint before the local Police Station and the allegation made in the application under Section 151 of the Code remains uncontroverted. Thus, it is not a case of word against word. In view thereof, the aforesaid decision cannot come to the aid of the petitioners. In the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the opposite parties have ventilated their grievances and have indicated the manner in which the order of injunction is being violated by the petitioners. The learned trial judge upon being satisfied with the urgency passed the order impugned. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. This civil revisional application stands dismissed. However, 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 of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)