JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 19.3.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC has been rejected. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction alongwith an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The application was accepted by the trial court by its order dated 24.2.2014 and it was directed that till the disposal of the suit, the defendant would maintain status quo regarding the way between Plot No.C- 63 and B-161 and the defendant would be free to raise construction by leaving the disputed way. 3. After the order was passed, the present application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioner on 20.1.2015, interalia alleging that after passing of the interim order by the trial court, the defendant has collected sand around the way resulting in the entire way being flooded with water resulting in violation of the interim order. It was contended that the petitioner has already filed application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC and the petitioner be directed to remove the sand in question so as to ensure proper ingress and egress from the way in question. 4. The application was opposed by the respondents. 5. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the issue as to whether the interim order passed by the trial court has been violated or not would require taking of evidence and would be decided in the pending application. So far as the application under Section 151 CPC was concerned from the material, it was not apparent that the traffic on the way was anyway effected by the collection of water and consequently dismissed the application. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the photographs (Annex.3) that the finding of the trial court is on its face incorrect, inasmuch as, the entire lane is flooded by water and it cannot be said that the traffic is not effected by the same and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Tanusree Basu & Ors. v. Ishani Prasad Basu & Ors. : 2008(3) CCC 001 (SC). 8. 7. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Tanusree Basu & Ors. v. Ishani Prasad Basu & Ors. : 2008(3) CCC 001 (SC). 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 9. The trial court after considering the entire material available on record and the purpose and purport of the injunction dated 24.2.2014 passed by it came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the order dated 24.2.2014 would stand frustrated on account of the situation available on site and consequently rejected the application. 10. From the material available on record, it cannot be said that the finding of the trial court is perverse so as to require interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tanusree Basu (supra) was based on the fact that during the pendency of the interim order, the party was dispossessed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while exercising power under Section 151 CPC, the Court has jurisdiction to restore the parties back to the previous position. However, in view of the finding of the trial court, the judgment is of no application. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******