Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - (1.) -Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate whereas notice for opposite parties no. 2 to 4 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. For the order proposed to be passed notice to opposite parties no. 5 to 29 are hereby dispensed with.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has filed Regular Suit No. 1270 of 2012, Rajendra Bahadur Singh v. Jag Prasad and others for grant of permanent injunction in which the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code was also filed. Learned trial court vide order dated 21.12.2012 had allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession over the property in question and also restrained the defendants from illegal encroachment over the land in question. The said order was duly communicated to the parties concerned, however, the defendants disturbed the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question and tried to cut the standing sugarcane crops. In this regard petitioner informed the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 but the State Authorities did not ensure the compliance of the injunction order granted by the trial court. Petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code before the trial court for ensuring the implementation of injunction order granted by the said court. The learned trial court by impugned order has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner as not maintainable.
(3.) It is submitted that learned trial court has inherent power to ensure the compliance of its own order and as such the application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was fully maintainable. It is further submitted that the application under Order 39, Rule 2A Civil Procedure Code is moved in case the disobedience of the order passed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 has been committed for punishment of the contemnor. The application moved under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code cannot be rejected simply because the procedure under Order 39, Rule 2A is prescribed for the Court to punish the person for disobedience of its order. In support of his submission he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Hamja v. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Lucknow and others, 2010(2) SCD 937 : 2010 (2) ARC 421 wherein the court has held that the court concerned has inherent power to ensure that its order is complied and for that purpose application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code is fully maintainable.;