JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. 1. This petition challenges the judgments dated 20.7.2016 and 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhubaneswar in F.A.O. No.28 of 2016 and I.A. No.2 of 2016 respectively. By judgment dated 20.7.2016, learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar set aside the order dated 16.2.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.799 of 2015 and restrained the opposite party no.1-Association from preventing the entry of three private vehicles mentioned therein into the premises of Arcon Retreat apartment through its main gate to pick up/drop the minor daughter of the petitioner from school and tuition classes, whereas by judgment dated 30.11.2016, learned appellate court rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted C.S. No.7846 of 2015 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar, Khurda seeking the following reliefs: “I.(a) The plaintiff’s suit be decreed with costs. (b) It be declared that the MC or for that matter the General body of the Defendant no.1-Association cannot act and/or pass any resolution and/or undertake any action contrary to and in derogation of the bye-laws of the association and/or the objects of the Society as stipulated under the Memorandum of Association. (c) It be declared that circulars/resolutions dated 19.6.15, 25.6.15, 28.06.15 are bad in law and null and void ab initio and therefore not binding on the Society and/or its Members being beyond the scope of authority of the MC as well as the General body for being contrary to and in derogation of the bye-laws as well as Memorandum of Association more particularly the objects clause of the Arcon Retreat Welfare Association. (d) It be declared that the Arcon Retreat Welfare Association being a cultural association must act in a manner so as to propagate the objects for which it has been registered and not in derogation thereof. (e) It be declared that any attempt by either the MC or the General Body to frame any Rules and Regulations (which is under contemplation) contrary to the objects of the society would be illegal and not binding on the members thereof. II. (e) It be declared that any attempt by either the MC or the General Body to frame any Rules and Regulations (which is under contemplation) contrary to the objects of the society would be illegal and not binding on the members thereof. II. (a) By way of a decree of permanent mandatory injunction this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Defendants not to implement the impugned circulars/resolutions and further allow continuance of the private van to pick up and drop the children from inside the Society as has been in vogue for the past several years in the interest of the safety and security of the young children some of whom per force have to return home at very late at night after their coaching classes gets over. (b) By way of restrictive/prohibitive injunction the defendants may be restrained from enforcing/implementing the impugned circulars/resolutions and preventing the private van arranged by parents from picking up and dropping the school children from within the society premises, and also not to issue any circulars/pass any resolutions, subject matter whereof is not within the objects for which the society has been formed.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of a Flat No.DE-110, Arcon Retreat, Patia, Bhubaneswar. The residents of the apartment have formed a society in the name and style of Arcon Retreat Owners Welfare Association. The society has been registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860. She is a member of the society. The aim and objective of the society is to improve literature, fine art and culture and work for general public. While the matter stood thus, the Managing Committee issued a letter dated 19.6.2015 banning entry of the school buses inside the gate of the society from 22.6.2015. Her minor daughter is prosecuting studies in Sai International School. Other minor children of the apartment are prosecuting their studies. They used to attend coaching classes. It is not possible on the part of the minor children to board the bus from the main gate in view of the traffic jam since the gate of the society opened to very busy six lane road connecting from Jayadev Vihar to Nandankanan. With this factual background, the suit has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 4. It is not possible on the part of the minor children to board the bus from the main gate in view of the traffic jam since the gate of the society opened to very busy six lane road connecting from Jayadev Vihar to Nandankanan. With this factual background, the suit has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 4. The petitioner had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. for restraining the opposite parties not to prevent the entry of private vans arranged by the petitioner and other residents of the apartment for taking their minor children including the daughter of the petitioner to the school and coaching center and drop them inside the campus, which was registered as I.A. No.799 of 2015. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed objection. The specific case of the opposite parties is that the opposite party no.1 is a society formed by 121 members of different flat owners. The petitioner is the member of the society. The suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The Managing Committee of opposite party no.1 had taken a decision to prevent the forcible entry of the school bus into the campus of the society for the safety and security of the members of the society. The petitioner tried to hire contract carriage vehicles into the campus of opposite party no.1. All the school going children of the members of the society used to go to outside the campus of the apartment. But then, the petitioner along with few other flat owners have tried to bring commercial vehicles forcibly into the campus. As per Police Commissionerate Regulation, 2008, no school bus can transport children to and fro from the school without written permission of the Commissionerate of Police. The drivers of the vehicles have not been permitted by the Commissionerate Police to take school going children. There are security guards and supervisors deployed by the society for the safety and security of all the flat owners. Entry of persons into the campus of the apartment is recorded by C.C. TV camera at its entrance gate. Without following the decision of the opposite party no.1- Society, the petitioner tried to make entry of the private vehicles into the campus of the society endangering the safety and security of the senior citizens and children of that apartment. Learned trial court dismissed the application. Without following the decision of the opposite party no.1- Society, the petitioner tried to make entry of the private vehicles into the campus of the society endangering the safety and security of the senior citizens and children of that apartment. Learned trial court dismissed the application. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed F.A.O. No.28 of 2016 before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar. 5. Learned appellate court allowed the appeal. The operative part of the judgment is quoted hereunder. “The O.P. No.1 (Association) is hereby restrained temporarily from preventing the entry of anyone of the private carrier vehicles out of the following three vehicles i.e. Mini Cab (Bolero XL 2WD) bearing Regd. No.OD-02-R- 1955, Maxximo Mini Van bearing Regd. No.OR-02-BV- 8155 and Mahendra Mini bearing Regd. No.OR-02-BR- 0566 into the premises of Arcon Retreat Apartment through its main gate after getting written intimation from the appellant/petitioner through proper document about the supply of the detailed particulars and informations of that one vehicle among the above three with the identity of the owner and driver of the said particular vehicle to the Commissioner ate of Police, Bhubaneswar and as well as to the Local P.S. by the petitioner, through which vehicle, the petitioner will send her minor daughter to the school and coaching center and bring her back from there into the premises of the apartment through its gate till the final disposal of the original suit vide C.S. No.7846 of 2015.” 6. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. for violation of the order of injunction. It is stated that in compliance of the order of the learned appellate court, the petitioner sent relevant information to the Commissioner of Police, IIC, Chandrasekharpur P.S. as well as the opposite party nos.2 and 3 by letter dated 27.07.2016 by speed post. But then, the opposite party nos.2 and 3 brazenly violated the order passed by the learned appellate court. They have not issued any instruction at the security gate for entry of one vehicle inside the campus to pick up her minor daughter. But then, the opposite party nos.2 and 3 brazenly violated the order passed by the learned appellate court. They have not issued any instruction at the security gate for entry of one vehicle inside the campus to pick up her minor daughter. The opposite parties sent a letter dated 3.8.2016 to the petitioner asking for certain documents of the vehicle out of three vehicles with detailed particulars and information as per circular no.1 of 2012 of Transport Commissioner, Government of Odisha and letter no.11036 dated 3.6.2011, Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and High Ways. The opposite party filed objection to the said petition denying the assertions made in the petition. It is stated that the petitioner had failed to abide by the order passed on 20.7.2016 in F.A.O. No.28 of 2016. On 28.7.2016, the petitioner had only intimated the driving license of the driver and owner, but did not furnish the detailed particulars of the vehicle. The opposite party no.3 issued a letter dated 3.8.2016 to the petitioner asking her to furnish all required documents to allow one vehicle. When the petitioner did not accede to the request, the opposite party no.3 requested the vehicle owner and the R.T.O. for supply of detailed particulars of the vehicles. Pursuant to the said letter, the R.T.O. sent a letter on 10.8.2016 intimating that the vehicles are not permitted to carry the school children. Letter No.11036 dated 3.6.2011 of Government of Odisha and circular no.1 of 2012 of Govt. of Odisha, Transport Commissioner contained the detailed particulars of information required for school vehicle. The petitioner was requested to submit the same. Further, the Commerce and Transport Department of Odisha in its letter dated 31.8.2016 had issued guideline for transportation of school children. Thus there was no deliberate and willful violation of the order of injunction. 7. of Odisha, Transport Commissioner contained the detailed particulars of information required for school vehicle. The petitioner was requested to submit the same. Further, the Commerce and Transport Department of Odisha in its letter dated 31.8.2016 had issued guideline for transportation of school children. Thus there was no deliberate and willful violation of the order of injunction. 7. Learned appellate court came to hold that the opposite party no.1 was restrained temporarily from preventing the entry of any one of the private carrier vehicles out of the three vehicles into the premises of Arcon Retreat, Patia, Bhubaneswar through its main gate after getting written information from the appellant/petitioner through proper document about the supply of the detailed particulars and information of that one vehicle among the above three with the identity of the owner and the driver of the said particular vehicle to the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar as well as local police by the petitioner. It was a condition precedent to be fulfilled by the petitioner. The full particulars and information of the vehicle are not confined to only registration numbers of the three vehicles, the name of their owner and copies of driving licenses of the drivers. In order to ply a vehicle on a public way even in the premises of Arcon Retreat, Patia, Bhubaneswar, the following documents are sine qua non (i)Valid permit (ii)Registration certificate (iii)Fitness certificate (iv)Valid insurance certificate. The petitioner had only supplied the registration numbers of all the three vehicles, the name of the owner of such vehicles and photostat copy of the driving license of three drivers instead of particulars of one vehicle through which the petitioner will send her minor daughter to the school and coaching center. The court has not permitted the petitioner to use all the three vehicles for the purpose. The opposite parties were in dark as to which vehicle out of three will be engaged by the petitioner. Mere submission of particulars of three vehicles and driving licenses of three drivers does not amount to compliance of the order passed by the learned appellate court. It further held that the opposite party no.3 vide letter dated 3.8.16 requested the petitioner to intimate the detailed particulars and information of any one vehicle out of three. Mere submission of particulars of three vehicles and driving licenses of three drivers does not amount to compliance of the order passed by the learned appellate court. It further held that the opposite party no.3 vide letter dated 3.8.16 requested the petitioner to intimate the detailed particulars and information of any one vehicle out of three. The opposite party no.3 had requested the petitioner to intimate with proper document of one vehicle out of three with detailed particulars and information as per circular no.1 of 2012 of Transport Commissioner, Government of Odisha and letter no.11036 dated 3.6.11 of Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and High Way. Since the petitioner failed to comply the request made vide letter dated 3.8.2016, the opposite party no.3 vide letter dated 8.8.16 requested the owner of all the three vehicles to furnish certain documents. It further held that the three vehicles are not the school children carrying vehicles. These are private carrier vehicles out of which one is required to carry the minor daughter of the petitioner to the school and coaching center and bring her back. The documents are necessary for compliance of the order. Further the opposite party no.3 requested the R.T.O., Bhubaneswar vide letter dated 8.8.16 to supply detailed information and particulars of the three vehicles. The R.T.O., Bhubaneswar vide letter dated 10.8.16 submitted the details of the three vehicles to the opposite party no.3. It reveals that Birendra Kumar Sahu is the owner of the three vehicles. The fitness of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.OD-02-R-1955 is valid till 8.8.17. It’s sitting capacity is 9. The insurance was valid from 23.7.14 to 22.7.15. The permit vehicle bearing Regn. No.OR-02-BV-8155 was valid till 27.2.17. It’s sitting capacity is 8. The insurance was valid from 16.2.12 to 15.2.13. The petitioner had not submitted any document to show that the insurance certificates of both the vehicles were valid till filing of the application. It further held that the driving licenses of the drivers were valid till 21.02.17, 4.4.17 and 18.5.17 respectively. Particulars of the insurance policies of vehicle No.OD-02-R- 1955 and OR-02-V-8155 were not intimated. The petitioner had given the name of the owner and the driving license of the drivers of all the three vehicles. All the documents including the insurance certificate of vehicle bearing No.OR-02-BR-0566 were valid. Particulars of the insurance policies of vehicle No.OD-02-R- 1955 and OR-02-V-8155 were not intimated. The petitioner had given the name of the owner and the driving license of the drivers of all the three vehicles. All the documents including the insurance certificate of vehicle bearing No.OR-02-BR-0566 were valid. Thus, by no stretch of imagination the opposite parties have deliberately and willfully violated the order dated 20.7.16 prior to filing of this case. Held so, the I.A. is dismissed. 8. Heard Mr.B.A. Mohnaty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. B.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 9. Mr. B.A. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that opposite party no.1-soceity was registered under the Society Registration Act to improve literature, fine art and culture and work for general public. The members of the Managing Committee of the society have no jurisdiction travelled beyond by law and pass a resolution prohibiting entry of a vehicle to pick up a school going child. The action of the society is an anathema to the ethos and philosophy of the bye-law of the society. The society cannot prevent private arranged vehicles like Bolero, Mini Van from entering into the apartment complex through its main gate to pick up/drop school going minor children from school and tuition classes, when hundred of vehicles including taxis, autos, milk vans/truck, vegetable vans, tractors, packers and movers, commercial vehicles hired by bank officers as well as State Government enter into the apartment complex. He further submitted that there is heavy traffic in Patia. It is impossible on the part of a tiny girl to board the school bus from the main gate. Due to the lackadaisical attitude exhibited by the opposite party no.1-society, the plaintiff has to approach the civil court. 10. Per contra, Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties submitted that learned appellate court passed order subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The petitioner had not complied with the same. Rather she filed an application for violation of the order of injunction. The opposite parties had not violated the order of injunction. They have highest regards towards majesty of justice. 11. The petitioner had not complied with the same. Rather she filed an application for violation of the order of injunction. The opposite parties had not violated the order of injunction. They have highest regards towards majesty of justice. 11. In Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and others, (1990) 2 SCC 117 , the apex Court discussed the principles to be kept in mind in considering the prayer for interlocutory injunction and held: “16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 17. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion.” 12. Mandatory injunction should be granted in rarest of the rare cases as held by this Court in the case of Maa Sarala Distributor vs. Hindustan Cocacola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., CLT (2008) Suppl.832. 13. Mandatory injunction should be granted in rarest of the rare cases as held by this Court in the case of Maa Sarala Distributor vs. Hindustan Cocacola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., CLT (2008) Suppl.832. 13. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra, the instance case of may be examined. Admittedly, the opposite party no.1-soceity had passed the resolution which is the subject matter of dispute. Any finding of this Court with regard to the same, will weigh the mind of the members of the society. Thus this Court refrains itself from giving any finding with regard to the jurisdiction of the society to pass resolution in an application for injunction. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff has a strong case for trial, balance of convenience tilts heavily in her favour and moreover she will suffer irreparable loss and injury in the mandatory injunction directing the defendants to allow any of the vehicles to pick up the minor daughter of the plaintiff from the campus of the apartment is not granted. Learned appellate court in paragraph 11 of the judgment noted that in course of hearing of the appeal, the counsel for the respondent-opposite parties submitted that the respondents have no objection to allow the entry of any private vehicles into the premises of the apartment to take the minor daughter of the petitioner to the school, in the event the entry of the said vehicle is approved by the Commissioner ate of Police for the safety and security of the daughter of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an affidavit on 2.7.2016 furnishing the detailed particulars of the private carrier vehicles along with the names of the owners, drivers through which she intends to send her daughter to the school. However, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended in the court below that no private vehicles would be allowed to enter into the campus of the apartment as per law. Learned appellate court further held that the personal vehicles of flat owners enter into the campus of the apartment through its gate. The proposed private carrier vehicle (the detailed particulars of which had been furnished by the petitioner) cannot be bigger than the shape and size of the personally used vehicles of the flat owners, because the sitting capacity of the said private vehicles are limited to 7 and 8 nos. The proposed private carrier vehicle (the detailed particulars of which had been furnished by the petitioner) cannot be bigger than the shape and size of the personally used vehicles of the flat owners, because the sitting capacity of the said private vehicles are limited to 7 and 8 nos. Held so, learned appellate court allowed entry of anyone of the vehicle mentioned in the order into the premises of the apartment through main gate after getting written intimation from the opposite parties and supply of the detailed particulars and information of one of the vehicles with the identity of the owner and driver of the vehicle to the Commissioner ate of Police, local P.S. till disposal of the C.S. No.7846 of 2015.. The petitioner is the mother of the child. She can look after the safety and welfare of her minor child, not the members of the society. Learned appellate court is justified in permitting entry of one of the vehicles mentioned in the order subject to furnishing the detailed particulars of the vehicles mentioned supra. It is not domain of the society to find out whether the vehicle confirms to norms and standards of the buses/vehicles for carrying the school going children. But then, the safety of the flat owners cannot be brushed aside. Thus, the learned appellate court is quite justified in allowing entry of one of the vehicles subject to fulfillment of the twin conditions mentioned supra. 14. Learned court below while dealing with the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in rendering finding with regard to permit, insurance policy, sitting capacity, fitness certificate. It gave undue importance to the documents supplied by the R.T.O. The scope of the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. is extremely limited. The court has to see whether there is disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 and 2 of Order 39 C.P.C. or breach of any terms on which the injunction was granted or the order was made. The court can interpret the order for the limited purpose of finding out whether the same is flouted. The court cannot impose additional conditions. That is not the domain of the court. 15. The court can interpret the order for the limited purpose of finding out whether the same is flouted. The court cannot impose additional conditions. That is not the domain of the court. 15. In view of the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs, the petition is disposed of with an observation that in the event the petitioner furnishes the name of the owner as well as the driver of the vehicle in writing to the Commissioner ate of Police, IIC, Chadrasekharpur P.S. as well as the Secretary of the opposite party no.1-society, the Secretary shall allow the entry of one of the vehicles through main gate to the place, where Lord Ganesh statue stands. This Court hopes and trusts that parties shall amicably resolve their dispute to give quietus to the issue, instead of fighting litigation in the court.