A. K. GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THIS application was assigned before me by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice by an order dated 19. 07. 2001. ( 2 ) THIS application has been filed with a prayer for directing the Commissioner of Police as well as Officer-in-Charge, Park Street Police Station to provide police help to enable the Receiver to take actual physical possession of the suit premises being Flat No. 16, 33 and 34 Park Mansion of premises No. 57a, Park Street, Calcutta-700 016 [hereinafter referred to as the said premises]. ( 3 ) IN order to properly appreciate the controversies involved in this case, a few facts are required to be stated. ( 4 ) THE suit out of which this application arises was filed in 1987 by the plaintiff/petitioner for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises. ( 5 ) IN the said suit an application was filed for appointment of a Receiver and on such petition a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 17th September, 1987 appointed Mr. Debasis Das, an advocate, the Receiver to take symbolic possession of the said premises in terms of prayer 'a' of the petition. There was also an interim order in terms of prayer 'b' of the petition. Prayers (a) and (b) in terms of which the order was passed are set out below: (A)a Special Officer and/or a Receiver be appointed to take symbolic possession of the said flat described in annexure "a" of the petition with a further direction to make an inventory of the moveable property in the said flat and make a report to this Hon'ble Court as to the present state, condition and position of the said flat. (b)injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from in any way transferring or otherwise parting with possession or creating any third-party interest in the said flat. " ( 6 ) ON being appointed Receiver, the learned advocate, Mr. Debasish Das visited the said premises and found one Laxman Das Walia in exclusive possession of the flat and the Receiver took symbolical possession of the said premises. In this connection, reference may be made to the report of the Receiver which was filed in the proceeding. From the said report, it is clear that one Laxman Das Walia, the original defendant No. 2 was in exclusive possession on the said premises. In this connection, reference may be made to the report of the Receiver which was filed in the proceeding. From the said report, it is clear that one Laxman Das Walia, the original defendant No. 2 was in exclusive possession on the said premises. From the said report, it does not appear that the defendant No. 1 was in occupation of the said premises. The Receiver was informed by the defendant No. 2 that the whereabouts of defendant No. 1 are not known to defendant No. 2 who also informed the Receiver that most of the furniture and fixtures in the said flat including various movables were purchased by defendant No. 2 from defendant No. 1. The Receiver's report also showed that he took symbolic possession of the said premises and defendant No. 2 was informed of the same. According to the said report, it appeared that the flat consists of two bedrooms, one big hall, two verandahs, one kitchen, one storeroom and three toilets. The Receiver prepared an inventory in terms of the order of the Court dated 27th October 1987. The report is based on the minutes which were signed by the said Mr. Laxman Das Walia and the advocate of the petitioner and also the Receiver himself. ( 7 ) ON 15th February, 1988, the said ad interim order dated 17th September, 1987, after hearing the parties, was made absolute by a learned Judge by directing that Receiver will continue to be in formal possession of the said premises and there was also an order in terms of prayer 'b' which has been set out above and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the said premises without fail. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- within a period of fortnight from date. It has been made clear that in case of default in making payment, the Receiver will immediately take possession of the flat and put his own lock on the door. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER, the case of the petitioner is that in the early part of July 1992, the petitioner came to know, for the first time, that defendant No. 2 died and his heirs are no longer in the possession of the flat and the following names were displayed as the occupiers of the said premises:1. TURNER Morrison;2. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER, the case of the petitioner is that in the early part of July 1992, the petitioner came to know, for the first time, that defendant No. 2 died and his heirs are no longer in the possession of the flat and the following names were displayed as the occupiers of the said premises:1. TURNER Morrison;2. N. S. Hoon;3. CALCUTTA Veener;4. EVERTECH Engineering;5. HUNDERFORD Investment Trust Limited. ( 9 ) SO immediately an application was filed on 8th July, 1992 by the petitioner for a direction on the Receiver to inspect the said premises and submit a report and also for a direction upon the said Receiver to take actual and physical possession of the said premises. On such application being moved, an order was passed by a learned Judge of this Court on 8th July, 1992 granting ad interim order in terms of prayer 'a'. The said prayer is set out below:"mr. Debasish Das the learned Receiver be directed to inspect Flat No. 16 in the Park Mansion Building at Nos. 33 and 34 Park Street, Calcutta - 700 016 and make a report before this Hon'ble Court as to the persons in actual physical possession of the said Flat. " ( 10 ) THE inspection report of the Receiver was directed to make ready on or before the returnable date. In terms of the said order, the Receiver visited the said premises and found one Mr. Dinesh Pradhan and Mr. Phani Bhusam Chakraborty in the said premises claiming to be employees of M/s. Evertech Engineering and Calcutta Veener Industries Limited. ( 11 ) FROM the report of the Receiver, the following things appear:"at the outer door of the Flat, I found a Brass Name-Plate bearing the following names:- (a)the Turner Morrison and Grahams Group of Companies; (b)n. S. Hoon; (c)hungerford Investment Trust. Above the said Name Plate, there was another Name Plate of acrylic bearing the names of the following two concers:- (d)enertek Engineering; (e) calcutta Veneer Industries Pvt. Ltd. In this context, it may be mentioned that during my visit on October 31, 1987, there was an old Brass Name Plate bearing the name of "notu and Premila Hoon". WHEN I entered the Flat only a bearer of Enertek Engineering and Calcutta Veneer Industries Pvt. Ltd. was present. WHEN I entered the Flat only a bearer of Enertek Engineering and Calcutta Veneer Industries Pvt. Ltd. was present. Soon thereafter, Sri Phani Bhusan Chakrabarti, Accountant and Sri Amarjeet Rudra, Supervisor, both of Calcutta Veneer Industries Private Limited arrived. I went round the Flat. There is one big room facing Main Door. On the outer door of the said Room, another name plate of M/s. Entertek Engineering and Calcutta Veneer Industries Pvt. Ltd. was affixed. I was informed by the said persons that the said room was in exclusive possession of the said two concerns. Enertek Engineering belonged to Sri Amitava Poddar and Calcutta Veneer Industries Pvt. Ltd. was being managed by Sri Sanjeevan Chatterjee. The said room was converted into a well maintained Office with all furniture and fixtures. A wooden cubicle had also been constructed in the said room. A wooden staircase was also made so that the space above the cubicle could also be utilized for Office purposes. The room adjoining the said room was locked. The said persons informed me that the room contained certain damaged computers and that certain Government Authorities had initially sealed the said room and, thereafter, the seal was removed. I was told by Sri Poddar that the Third Room which was also locked was in occupation of one Sri Chatterjee, who is a lawyer. The fourth room was open and I was told that the same was in occupation of one Sri Ganesh Mallick. However, Mr. Mallick was not available and a big dog was found sleeping. Further, enquiries made by me revealed that none of the defendants, i. e. Sri N. S. Hoon, Smt. Pritam Kaur and Smt. Saroj Mehra were occupying the said Flat. however, wish to point out that (sic) has been remarkable change in the possession and condition of the Flat since I last visited the same on October 31, 1987. At that time, I had found Sri Laxman Dass Walia was in possession of the entire Flat. During the visit, there was no trace of Sri Laxman Dass Walia or any person claiming to be in possession through him. Dated the 15th day of July 199 sd/- (DEBASISH DAS)receiver. At that time, I had found Sri Laxman Dass Walia was in possession of the entire Flat. During the visit, there was no trace of Sri Laxman Dass Walia or any person claiming to be in possession through him. Dated the 15th day of July 199 sd/- (DEBASISH DAS)receiver. " ( 12 ) THE matter then appeared before the learned Judge on the returnable date and on that date the learned Judge heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for defendant No. 1. Upon such hearing the learned Judge issued on 21st July, 1992, a further ad interim order in terms of prayer (b) of the notice of motion and the Receiver was directed to take actual physical possession of the premises and keep the same until further orders. The Receiver was also directed to make available a copy of the report dated 15th July, 1992 to the counsel appearing for the respective parties. Counsel for the petitioner was given liberty to mention, in case the Receiver is obstructed in taking physical possession or police help is found necessary. ( 13 ) AGAINST the said order dated 21st July, 1992 the defendant No. 1 filed an appeal before the Appeal Court on 23rd July, 1992 and the Appeal Court was pleased to grant stay of the order dated 21st July, 1992. ( 14 ) ON or about 31st August, 2000, the petitioner filed an application before the Appellate Court for vacating the interim stay and dismissal of the appeal. ( 15 ) ON 21st June, 2001 the Hon'ble Appeal Court heard the learned counsel for the parties and vacated the stay order with a direction upon the appellant to file paper books with in 4 weeks. This Court is given to understand by the parties that against the said order vacating the stay the defendant No. 1 filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court during vacation but Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased not to grant any stay. ( 16 ) IN the background of these facts which are not in dispute, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the latest report of the receiver dated 5th July, 2001. ( 16 ) IN the background of these facts which are not in dispute, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the latest report of the receiver dated 5th July, 2001. The learned counsel further submitted that since the stay order against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21st July, 1992 does not any longer exist, so the said order is in operation. As such, the Receiver inspected the premises on 5th July, 2001 in terms of his notice dated 3rd July, 2001 the Receiver found the following names affixed on the door of the said premises:" (A)r. N. B. Digitronics Pvt. Ltd. ; (b)turner Morrison and Grahams Group of Companies Ltd. ; (c)calcutta Veener Industries Ltd. ; (d)s. R. Incorporated Enterprises (India) Private Limited. " ( 17 ) APART from that from the Receiver's report the following position emerges:" When I entered the flat I found the flat is divided in 2 parts. The right hand side is being occupied by offices namely R. N. B. Digitronics Pvt. Ltd. , S. R. Incorporated Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. , Subasto India Pvt. Ltd. , where more than 100 people are working as I was told. There is also a canteen, toilet and more or less 10 cubicles inside the said right hand portion of the flat. There is also one cubicle where one Mr. Manoj Pathak has real estate office. The left had portion of the said flat has a door where the names of Surya Tea and Allied Products, CMC Computer Education, Park Street Centre are affixed by paper. The door was closed from inside. They are occupying the said portion. Further enquiries made by me revealed that none of the defendants i. e. Sri N. S. Hoon, Smt. Pritam Kaur, Smt. Saroj Mehra and M/s. Grahams Trading Company (I) Ltd. were occupying the said flat. I, however wish to point out that the said flat has been changed with regards in its possession and condition since my last visit on July 10, 1992. There are some new well-decorated offices in the said flat which were not there earlier, who are at present in physical possession and occupying the same. They refused and/or are unable to give no physical possession of the flat. There are some new well-decorated offices in the said flat which were not there earlier, who are at present in physical possession and occupying the same. They refused and/or are unable to give no physical possession of the flat. As such to me, if physical possession of the said flat is to be taken necessary orders from the Hon'ble Court for assistance of police help in necessary to comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble Court. " ( 18 ) THEREAFTER, the present application has been filed by the petitioner seeking police help to enable the Receiver to take actual physical possession. ( 19 ) WHILE arguing in support of this application, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendant No. 1 has with impunity changed the possession of the said premises even after the Receiver has taken symbolical possession of the said premises on 31st October, 1987. the learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid action of the defendant No. 1 is wholly unwarranted and in violation of the order of this Court and amounts to an interference with the possession of a Receiver. The learned counsel further submitted that since the Receiver was directed by order dated 21st July, 1992 to take actual physical possession of the said premises and the said order is now in operation, the Receiver should be given the necessary police help to act in terms of the Court's order of taking the actual physical possession. ( 20 ) THE learned counsel further submitted that persons who have been allegedly inducted by the defendant No. 1 in the said premises ignoring the symbolical possession of the Receiver and also the interim order of injunction issued on 17th September, 1987 restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from in any way transferring or otherwise parting with possession or creating any third party interest in the said premises have not acquired any right. Therefore, the induction of all these persons whose names appear in the Receiver's report is in violation of the said order of this Court and a nullity in the eye of law. 1 and 2 from in any way transferring or otherwise parting with possession or creating any third party interest in the said premises have not acquired any right. Therefore, the induction of all these persons whose names appear in the Receiver's report is in violation of the said order of this Court and a nullity in the eye of law. ( 21 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has cited two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the first one was in the case of Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and Others, reported in 1994 (2) SCC 266 and the other one was in the case of Surjit Singh and Others v. Harbans Singh and Others, reported in 1995 (6) SCC 50 . ( 22 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant No. 1 has contested the case made out by the petitioner mostly on the ground that the order dated 21st July, 1992 is an ad interim order. The said order cannot decide the rights of the parties nor can it be implemented in such a way as to render the pending appeal infructuous. The learned counsel further submitted that there are various questions which are to be tried in the pending suit so the ad interim order should not be implemented without hearing the main matter. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is neither the landlord not the tenant of the suit premises. As such his relationship with the defendant No. 1 should be decided first. The learned counsel also submitted that by asking for police help, the petitioner is trying to execute an ad interim order and in matters of execution, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the execution of decree shall, so far as they are applicable, be deemed to apply to the execution of order. ( 23 ) THE learned counsel did not place much reliance on the affidavit filed by his client in this case. In para 12 it has been said that the deponent has reservations about the impartiality of the Receiver and a reference was made to earlier affidavit filed by the defendant No. 1. ( 23 ) THE learned counsel did not place much reliance on the affidavit filed by his client in this case. In para 12 it has been said that the deponent has reservations about the impartiality of the Receiver and a reference was made to earlier affidavit filed by the defendant No. 1. But the learned counsel, on being questioned by the Court, did not refer to those affidavits and submitted that he is not pressing that aspect of the matter and kept his submission confined to the legal aspect of the matter only. ( 24 ) THE learned counsel then submitted that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 35 sub-Rule 3 would apply in the instant case and he further submitted that Order 21 rules 97, 98, 100 and 101 would also apply to the instant case. According to the learned counsel order for police help cannot be granted in this case since the appeal is pending against the ad interim order. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 relied on various judgments of this Court and also of the Supreme Court and the scope and effect of ad interim order and on the opportunity of hearing to be given to the obstructionists to the execution of decree. ( 25 ) MR. Jayanta Mitra, the learned senior advocate wanted to appear on behalf of those persons whose names appear in the report of the Receiver dated 5th July, 2001 but the Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, decided not to hear the learned counsel in support of those persons. ( 26 ) THE first decision on which Mr. Basu, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied was rendered in the case between Satyabrata Biswas and Others v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and Others, reported in (1994)2 SCC 266 . In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered under Article 136 of the Constitution where the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in contempt proceeding. In that context, the learned Judges held in para 23 of that judgment that the principle contained in the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' has no application in a case when in violation of order of status quo a sub-tenancy has been created. In that context, the learned Judges held in para 23 of that judgment that the principle contained in the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' has no application in a case when in violation of order of status quo a sub-tenancy has been created. In other words, the learned Judges laid down that when an act has been done in violation of an injunction of the Court, such an act is clearly illegal, In that case, sub-tenancy was created in violation of order of status quo of the Court. In such a situation, the contention that a trespasser cannot be evicted without recourse to law does not hold good. As such the grant of sub-lease in violation of the status quo order has no legal effect. ( 27 ) ALMOST to the similar effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh (supra ). In that case, the rights under preliminary decree were assigned in violation of Court's order and as such it was held that such an assignment is invalid. In that context the following observations made by the Court in para 4 of the report are very pertinent and set out below:"in defiance of restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. It we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a list, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. The Court, in these circumstances has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes. " ( 28 ) IT was also held that in such a case the doctrine of 'list pendens' does not apply and the Court refused to implead the assignees to the proceeding. ( 29 ) MR. Mitra, the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 has also cited certain decisions which are considered below. ( 30 ) THE first decision on which reliance was placed was in the case of Smt. Usha Ghosh v. Rabindra Nath Das and Ors. , reported in 1991 (1) CLJ 434 . ( 29 ) MR. Mitra, the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 has also cited certain decisions which are considered below. ( 30 ) THE first decision on which reliance was placed was in the case of Smt. Usha Ghosh v. Rabindra Nath Das and Ors. , reported in 1991 (1) CLJ 434 . In that case, in execution of a decree passed by Civil Court, possession was obtained by the respondent with police help on the basis of the order of the Executive Magistrate. The Division Bench of this High Court held that obtaining possession on the basis of police help by the order of the Executive Magistrate renders the process void. The learned Judges held that the Executive Magistrate's order is not a judicial order but it is an administrative order. The learned Judges also held that the recovery of possession with such police help renders the process void and these questions can be adjudicated in any Court and it is not necessary that only the executing Court can decide this question. ( 31 ) THE next decision on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 was in the case of Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswaland Anr. , reported in AIR 1997 SC 856 . It is also reported in 1997 (3) SCC 694 . In that case, it was held that it was not correct to hold that the only remedy available to a stranger to a decree of possession is to lose his possession first and then to have his claim adjudicated under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Court. It was held if the obstructionist alleges to have any independent right, title and interest in the property in question and if he is not a party to the decree, his grievances can be determined before losing possession to the decree-holder. ( 32 ) THE next judgment which was cited by the learned counsel for defendant No. 1 was in the case of Shreenath and Another v. Rajesh and Others, reported in (1998)4 SCC 543 . ( 32 ) THE next judgment which was cited by the learned counsel for defendant No. 1 was in the case of Shreenath and Another v. Rajesh and Others, reported in (1998)4 SCC 543 . In that case the expression of the word 'any person' occurring in Order 21 Rule 97 came up for consideration and on a construction of the said word that it was held that even a person who is not bound by decree would be covered by the said expression and the learned Judges held in para 13 of the judgment that this position has not changed even after amendment of Civil Procedure Code by the 1976 Amendment Act. ( 33 ) THE last judgment in this series on which reliance was placed was in the case of Anwarbi v. Pramod D. A. Joshi and Others, reported in (2000)10 SCC 405 . It was held if a person is in possession of immovable property and is claiming legal entitlement and is obstructing the execution of a decree for possession, such person cannot be dispossessed till his rights are adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. ( 34 ) THE learned counsel also relied on the principle of grant of mandatory injunction at an ad interim stage by relying on the celebrated judgment in the case of Nandan Pictures Ltd. v. Art Pictures Ltd. and Others, reported in 1956 Calcutta 428. The learned counsel urged that it is only in a very rare case that a mandatory injunction can be granted at an interlocutory stage and cases where such an injunction can be granted at an ad interim order pending the decision of application itself is almost unknown. ( 35 ) THESE are the rival contentions of the parties. ( 36 ) THIS Court finds that the principles relating to execution of a decree can have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, no decree has been passed in favour of any of the parties and as such the question of execution does not arise. ( 36 ) THIS Court finds that the principles relating to execution of a decree can have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, no decree has been passed in favour of any of the parties and as such the question of execution does not arise. ( 37 ) WHEN execution of a decree relating to an immovable property takes place, the same amounts to conclusive determination of the rights of the parties to such property and if a person establishes before the executing Court that he has an independent right to the property in respect of which the decree has been passed and without determination of his right as he is not a party to the decree, in such a situation, the obstructionist, before losing possession to the decree-holder, can have his right determined in the executing Court. But in the instant case, the factual position is totally different. ( 38 ) HERE under an order of this Court, Receiver has taken symbolically possession of the said premises and thereafter the Receiver has been asked by the Court to take actual physical possession and if necessary by police help. Those orders are in operation. Even though, there is an appeal against the order directing the Receiver to take physical possession, no stay has been granted in this appeal. In fact, the stay has been vacated by the Appeal Court after eight years. Against the order of the Appeal Court, even an S. L. P. has been filed but stay has not been obtained. ( 39 ) IT is well known that the mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the order of the order appealed against. From the Receiver's reports which is not factually challenged, it is disclosed that despite these orders being there, the possession in the flat has been altered by alleged induction of persons who were not there when the symbolically possession was taken by the Receiver. Therefore, ignoring the order of the Court an attempt has been made to alter the factual possession. In the connection, this Court is of the view that the principles laid down in the two judgments of the apex Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Satyabrata Biswas (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra) are relevant. Therefore, ignoring the order of the Court an attempt has been made to alter the factual possession. In the connection, this Court is of the view that the principles laid down in the two judgments of the apex Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Satyabrata Biswas (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra) are relevant. ( 40 ) IT is accepted on authority and also on principle that when an action is taken in violation of an order of Court the resultant action is not only contumacious but is also void for illegality [see the judgment of Sir Robert Megarry, Vice-Chancellor in the case of Clarke v. Chatburn, reported in 1985)1 All England Report 211 at page 215]. ( 41 ) THESE principles in Clarke have been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd. and Another, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2005 . ( 42 ) TO the same effect, there are judgments of Calcutta High Court and also Madras High Court. Reference in this connection being made to the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Century Flowers Mills Limited v. S. Suppiah, reported in AIR 1975 Madras 270 [full Bench] and also the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Ashrafi Devi reported in AIR 1978 Calcutta NOC (210 ). ( 43 ) IN Ashrafi Devi (supra), Justice Sabyasachi Mukerjee, as His Lordship then was, held, inter alia, that a tenancy having been created in violation of a Court's order does confer any right on a third party. The said decision in Ashrafi Devi has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Kumar Khemka v. Grindlays Bank, reported in 1990 (3) SCC 669 , see paras 15 and 16 of the report, pages 681-682. ( 44 ) IN the instant case, the Court by appointing a Receiver is virtually trying to preserve the property to ensure its proper custody pending litigation in order to decide the rights of the parties. ( 45 ) IT is well known that when a Court has appointed a Receiver and the Receiver has taken symbolical possession of the property, his possession is the possession of the Court and such possession cannot be disturbed without the leave of the Court. ( 45 ) IT is well known that when a Court has appointed a Receiver and the Receiver has taken symbolical possession of the property, his possession is the possession of the Court and such possession cannot be disturbed without the leave of the Court. [kerr on Receivers and Administrators, 17th Edition, Sweet and Maxwell page 143] ( 46 ) IN other words, when a Receiver is appointed the possession of the properties to the suit vests legally in the Court and if the parties, thereafter continue the possession, they can only continue as custodian on behalf of the Court. ( 47 ) IN the instant case, from the reports of the Receiver which have been discussed above, it is apparent that the possession of the properties in respect of which Receiver has taken symbolical possession is sought to be altered and disturbed. ( 48 ) NOW the question is in such a situation whether the Court should hold its hands back just because the matter is at an ad interim stage. The Court, prima facie, is of the view that in such a situation, the Court should not hold its hands back rather the Court may, and if necessary, should pass mandatory order at an ad interim stage to prevent the alteration of the position which prevailed at the time the Receiver took symbolical possession. This is made clear even in Nandan Pictures (supra) by the learned Judges. In para 4 of the judgment the learned Judges have made it clear with the following observations which are set out below:"the one case in which a mandatory injunction is issued on an interlocutory application is where, with notice of the institution of the plaintiff's suit and the prayer made in it for an injunction to restrain the doing of a certain act, the defendant does that act and thereby alters the factual basis upon which the plaintiff claimed his relief. An injunction issues in such a case in order that the defendant cannot take advantage of his own act and defeat the suit by saying that the old cause of action no longer survived and a new cause of action for a new type of suit had arise. An injunction issues in such a case in order that the defendant cannot take advantage of his own act and defeat the suit by saying that the old cause of action no longer survived and a new cause of action for a new type of suit had arise. " ( 49 ) THESE principles laid down by the Chief Justice Chakroberty have also been reiterated thirty years thereafter by Justice Anil Kumar Sen, as His Lordship then was, while presiding over the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Cables Company Limited v. Smt. Sumitra Chakraborty, reported in AIR 1985 Calcutta 248. After considering the principles in Nandan Pictures (supra) in para 9 of the judgment in Indian Cables (supra), the learned Judge held as follows:"in my opinion, the principle on the point as it emerges on review of the authorities thereon is that if a Court is called upon to grant any relief on any interlocutory application which when granted would mean granting substantially the relief claimed in the suit, the Court will be very slow and circumspect in the matter of granting any such prayer. It is indeed true that such a relief should be granted only in exceptional cases. Though exercise of such a discretion should be limited to rare and exceptional cases, still at the same time no Court should think, as has been the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge, that in law there is any absolute bar to the Court granting such a relief. In deserving cases, the Court should not hesitate to come in aid of a litigant and uphold the cause of justice by granting such a relief. " ( 50 ) I am in total and respectful agreement and share the same view. ( 51 ) THEREFORE, prima facie, there is no bar in passing the interlocutory order in the manner in which it has been passed by the learned Judge. Apart from that since an appeal against the said order stage, since the said order is an operation, there is no reason why the Court should not follow the said order. One thing more has been made clear by the learned Judges in Indian Cables (supra) that at an interlocutory stage if the defendant is found to be "stealing a march" on the plaintiff, a mandatory injunction order can be granted. One thing more has been made clear by the learned Judges in Indian Cables (supra) that at an interlocutory stage if the defendant is found to be "stealing a march" on the plaintiff, a mandatory injunction order can be granted. On this aspect the observations of Justice Bridge in Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Kingswood Motors (Addlestone) Ltd. and Ors. , reported in (1973)3 All England Law Reports, 1057 are very relevant. ( 52 ) IN view of the aforesaid principles, this Court is of the view that in the facts of this case, the prayer for police help to enable the Receiver to take actual physical possession pursuant to Court's order cannot be refused. The Court, therefore, directs the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, as well as the Officer-In-Charge, Park Street Police Station, to provide necessary police assistance to the Receiver to enable the Receiver to take actual physical possession of the said premises being Flat No. 16 at 33 and 34 Park Mansion in Premises No. 57a, Park Street, Calcutta - 700 016. The Receiver is to give 24 hours notice to the police authorities before the wants to take actual physical possession of the flat, in question. Upon getting the said notice the police officers are directed to render necessary assistance to enable the Receiver to take actual physical possession of the premises mentioned above. The application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. All parties including the Receiver and Police Authorities are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this order. Application allowed later: the Receiver is given a further remuneration of 300 GMs to be paid by the petitioner for the present. Mr. S. Talukdar, appearing for the persons whose names appeared in the Receiver's report, prayed for stay of the operation of this judgment and order which is considered and rejected.