JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal against the order under Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC finding that the Appellant Defendants have violated the order of restraint passed. 2. Ordering portion of order of restraint which is alleged to have been violated reads as follows ; In such circumstances, issue ad interim order of injunction restraining the Defendants from taking any step to recover Rs. 1,24.762/- from the Plaintiff-Petitioner and from keeping any of the money in deposit with the State Bank of India, Puri Branch in the name of the Plaintiff or its proprietor till the disposal of the present application. Simultaneously, issue notice to show-cause to the O. ps. as to why the order of ad interim injunction shall not be made absolute against them fixing 27-3-1987... 3. Alleging mala fides of Appellant No. 4 and conspiracy of other Defendants to collect Rs. 1.24762/- from the Plaintiff on account of dues under the Orissa Sales tax Act suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed on 11-3-1987. A petition for temporary, injunction was filed. Trial Court directed notice to the Government Pleader who did not appear on 13-3-1987 when the order at injunction was passed relevant portion of which has been extracted earlier. 4. When the State Bank of India did not honour the cheques of the Plaintiff stating that the Sales Tax Officer, has attached the accounts, a petition was filed for taking action against the Appellants which having been allowed, this appeal has been filed. 5. Defendant No. I, is State of Orissa represented by Collector. State of Orissa has no role to play in attachment of money in Bank for realisation of Sales Tax dues u/s 13-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. When legislature has given power to the Commissioner or his delegated authority u/s 17 of the Act. Even it notice has been given to Government Pleader which amounts to notice to State of Orissa, I am not able to appreciate how State of Orissa has violated the order of injunction. Order against Defendant No. 1 cannot be sustained since no clear finding has been given attributing misfeasance against State of Orissa. 6. Defendant No. 2 is Sales. Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar Circle. There is no specific assertion how he violated the order of injunction. There is no specific finding to this effect. Order against Defendant No. 1 cannot be sustained since no clear finding has been given attributing misfeasance against State of Orissa. 6. Defendant No. 2 is Sales. Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar Circle. There is no specific assertion how he violated the order of injunction. There is no specific finding to this effect. On this short ground, the impugned order against him is liable to be vacated. 7. Defendant No. 3 is the Sales Tax Officer, Puri Circle. He issued the order of attachment in exercise of power u/s 13-A of the Act. He was not heard on the question of injunction. Govern went Pleader cannot appear for an officer of the State Government of his own. A Government Pleader can accept process against the State Government to act upon it. There is no scope for the Government Pleader to defend Public Officers. If the State Government undertakes the defence of a suit 'against' a Public Officer, it can authorise the Government Pleader in that respect. On such authority, Government Pleader is to apply to the Court to appear and answer the plaint which also includes petitions filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. Thereupon, Court being satisfied, shall cause a note of such authority to be entered in the register of Civil suits. Where no such application is made, the case shall proceed in the 'same manner as in case of private parties. This is applicable to all stages of a suit including appeals. In view of the aforesaid clear provision in' Order 27, Rule 8, CPC trial Court was not justified in giving a direction to the Plaintiff to serve notice on the Government Pleader to appear on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. Thus, ex parte order of injunction was passed without complying with the provisions of Order 39. Rule 3, CPC However, O. P. W. 1 admitted that the notice of injunction was received by him on 17-3-1987. By that time and much before the order of injunction was passed be had attached the bank accounts of the Plaintiff. Thus, attachment in exercise of the power u/s 13-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act cannot amount to a violation of the order of injunction. 8. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondent that on receipt of the order of injunction Defendant No. 3 ought to have withdrawn the letter of attachment. Thus, attachment in exercise of the power u/s 13-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act cannot amount to a violation of the order of injunction. 8. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondent that on receipt of the order of injunction Defendant No. 3 ought to have withdrawn the letter of attachment. In case Plaintiff would have moved Defendant No, 3 to withdraw the letter of attachment, I would have considered, the question of violation in that respect there is no direction of the Court for lifting the notice of attachment. The only step for realisation of tax was giving of notice of achievement of the accounts. This step was taken before the order of injunction was passed. There is no evidence that the amount has either been received by Defendant No. 3, from the Bank or be has taken further steps in the matter of realisation, I am satisfied that in the background of the aforesaid circumstances Defendant No. 3 has not violated any order of injunction since the letter of attachment was issued before the order of injunction was passed. There being no mandatory injunction to withdraw the letter of attachment if already issued, Defendant No. 3 cannot be penalised for not withdrawing the letter even if Plaintiff was put to difficulty on account of continuance of the attachment. Plaintiff could have also moved the trial Court to get a mandatory injunction which has not been done here. 9. Defendant No. 4 has been sued in personal, capacity for misuse of office, There is no evidence that in misuse of such office, he violated the order of injunction. The same discussion as in case of Defendant No. 3 would also govern the case of the Defendant No. 4. 10. In the result being satisfied that there is no violation of the order of injunction, appeal is allowed. The order of attachment passed by the Court for violation of the order of injunction is vacated. No costs. 11. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed