This revision petition arises from an order dated 18.4.88 passed by the Munsiff (1) Mangaldoi in Misc. Case No. 14 of 1988 for the enforcement of an interlocutory injunction granted by him on 11.4.1988. 2. On the application of the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 17 of 1988, on 11.4.88, the Munsiff (1) Mangaldoi, granted interlocutory interim injunction directing the defendant-petitioners to put up RCC Pillar with wooden gate in the place mentioned in the order, to fill up a drain described in the order, to demolish a water tank and res­training the defendant petitioners, their servants, agents and workmen from putting up further construction. For the violation as well as for the enforcement of the interlocutory order, the plaintiff filed an application. The learned Munsiff, on 18.4.88 passed an order for enforcement of the interlocutory injunction order with the help of the police. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff dated, 18.4.88, this petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioners. 3. . For the consequences of disobedience-or breach of the injunction, 0 39 R 2A provides punishment for wilful disobedience to the order of injunction. However, the learned Munsiff has not passed any order under 0 39 R 2A. As stated earlier, the learned Munsiff passed an order for enforcement of the interlocutory injunction with the help of the police. I am of the view that an order of injunction passed by a Court must be complied with, and if not complied with, the order must be enforced. 4. The question which arises for consideration is when the police force is to be used. Under the inherent power of the Court, Court can order police help, but it must be in the exceptional circums­tances 01 in a rare case. It may be given when the execution of the order is resisted or obstructed and the Court is of the opinion that unless such help is given, there will be breach of peace in the execution of the order. 5. Coming to the present case, there is no material or report of the bailiff that his attempt to execute the order was resisted or obstructed. The Munsiff passed the order straightway on the application filed by the petitioner. The Munsiff also has not given his reasons as to why the order should be executed or enforced with the help of the police. The Munsiff passed the order straightway on the application filed by the petitioner. The Munsiff also has not given his reasons as to why the order should be executed or enforced with the help of the police. In these view of the matter, the order of the Munsiff was in gross violation of the above principle and has acted illegally in the exercise of his discretion or jurisdiction. 6. The next question which arises for consideration is what relief to be granted. On perusal of the records of the learned Munsiff, it reveals that his order had already been executed on 21.4.88 with the help of the police before this Court passed the order of stay on 25.4.88. In these view of the matter, I am not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under section 115, CPC; However, the plaintiff must compensate the defendant if the plaintiff fails at the trial as is determined by the trial Court. With the said observation and direction, the petition is disposed of. No costs.