JUDGMENT 1. THE plaintiff is the petitioner in this application. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows: the petitioner instituted a suit being title Suit No. 267 of 1980 in the 3rd Court of Munsif, Howrah, against the opposite party for a declaration of her title to the property described in Schedule 'a' to the plaint and for a permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the opposite party his men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff's lawful possession of the A' schedule property. In the said suit the petitioner filed an application for a temporary injunction against the opposite party on which the court passed an order of temporary injunction on 4. 10. 80 on the following terms:- "Let an order of temporary injunction be issued restraining the defendant from interfering with the lawful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule 'a' property." 2. IT was alleged by the petitioner that inspite of this order of injunction the opposite party went on with the construction which caused interference with the plaintiff's possession of the 'a' schedule property. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the trial court for an order directing the police to see that the order of injunction passed by the Court was not violated. This application was rejected by the learned Munsif upon the view that he had no jurisdiction to make such an order and if there was any violation of the order of injunction passed by the Court the petitioner's remedy lay in making an application under Order 39 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure. Mr. Chatterjee learned Advocate appearing in support of this application has contended that the view taken by the learned Munsif is erroneous and in the circumstances of the case the learned Munsif failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law in refusing to make an order as prayed for by the petitioner. In support of his contention Mr. Chatterjee relied upon the decision in Rayapati Andemme Vs. Pothineni Narasimbam AIR 1971 A. P. 53. 3. MR. Nandy, learned Advocate, for the opposite party contended that his client might have been making construction as alleged by the petitioner but there is nothing to show that such construction caused any interference with the petitioner's possession in the 'a' schedule property. Chatterjee relied upon the decision in Rayapati Andemme Vs. Pothineni Narasimbam AIR 1971 A. P. 53. 3. MR. Nandy, learned Advocate, for the opposite party contended that his client might have been making construction as alleged by the petitioner but there is nothing to show that such construction caused any interference with the petitioner's possession in the 'a' schedule property. In view of the Commissioner's report a copy' of which has been annexed as Annexure 'c to the affidavit -in -reply filed by the petitioner and in view of the application for injunction on which the order dated 4. 10. 80 was passed, I am unable to accept this contention. 4. HAVING regard to the decision relied upon by Mr. Chatterjee and in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the order passed by the trial court cannot be allowed to stand. I, therefore, allow this application, set aside the order passed by the trial court on 18. 3. 81 and direct that court to pass appropriate directions upon the police as prayed for in the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 6. 3. 81 within two weeks from the date of receipt of the record by that court. There will be no order as to costs in this application. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.