JUDGMENT Sinha, J. This appeal is directed against an order dated 26.8.99 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, which is to the following effect :- "The learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents submits that the order of the Executive Magistrate shall be complied with. The concerned police authority shall file a compliance report on the next date of hearing. The matter is adjourned for a week. The learned Advocates are permitted to take the gist of the order and the concerned police authorities shall act on the basis of such communication." 2. Admittedly, the writ petitioner-respondents herein has filed a suit a'1d by an order dated 31.5.99 an ad interim order of injunction in the form of status quo in respect of the suit premises was passed. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached the police authorities who allegedly informed them to bring an order passed by an Executive Magistrate,' pursuant whereto an application was filed before the Sub-Divisions Magistrate, Krishnagar, Nadia which was marked as Application No. 489A (S)/99 wherein necessary protection was directed to be given to the petitioner. It appears that later on by an order dated 3.8.99 as contained in Annexure 'F' to the stay application status quo was directed to be passed. 3. From the impugned order as noticed hereinbefore, it appears that the Counsel for the state-respondents had submitted that the order of the Executive Magistrate shall be complied with. The attention of the learned Judge evidently had not been drawn to the subsequent order and probably attention of the learned Judge was drawn to the order of status quo passed by the learned Civil Judge. 4. When questioned, Mr. Ram, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent, sought to prevaricated his stand. At one stage the learned Counsel suggested that the said order dt. 25.5.99 was an administrative order purported to have been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in exercising of his power under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. However, when questioned; the learned Counsel failed to place before us any provisions of law or the provisions of the Land Reforms Act or otherwise to show that such administrative order granting police protection can be passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. However, when questioned; the learned Counsel failed to place before us any provisions of law or the provisions of the Land Reforms Act or otherwise to show that such administrative order granting police protection can be passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The learned Counsel thereafter changed his stand and submitted that the said order has been passed in view of the order of status quo passed by the Civil Court in T. S. No. 78/99 as contained in Annexure 'C' to the application. Mr. Ram when questioned that even the period during which the order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains operative had expired, stated that the said order was not passed under Section 144 thereof. 5. Even if an order of injunction by way of status quo only is passed by a competent Civil Court, the said order could have been implemented if any wilful violation thereof had occasioned by taking recourse to the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petitioner-respondent without taking recourse to the said procedure evidently adopted a circuitous method, firstly by filing an application before the Executive Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to pass such an order even under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and then to file a writ application to implement the said order. A writ petition in such a situation was not maintainable as has been held by this Court in a number of decisions. 6. It is stated by Mr. Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that taking the advantage of the said order the appellant had been dispossessed. This factual statement as made by Mr. Ganguly is denied and disputed by Mr. Ram. Be that as it may, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in view of the order of status quo passed by the Civil Court on 31.5.99 in T.S. No. 78 of 1999, the writ petitioner-respondent could not have claimed any higher right than that. 7. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside' and the parties are directed to maintain status quo as existing on 31.5.99. The police authorities are hereby directed to put back the appellants herein in possession if pursuant to the impugned order they have been dispossessed. 7. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside' and the parties are directed to maintain status quo as existing on 31.5.99. The police authorities are hereby directed to put back the appellants herein in possession if pursuant to the impugned order they have been dispossessed. This order shall not, however, stand in the way of the parties to raise their respective contentions in the Civil Suit. There will be no order as to costs. Xerox certified copy if applied for urgently, shall be given to the parties on priority basis. Ansari, J. : I agree.