Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) ADMIT .
(2.) SHRI J.P. Gupta, Advocate, appears for the contesting respondents. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The plaintiff -petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction along -with an application for temporary injunction, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 11th May, 2006 and the defendant -respondents were restrained not to put any obstruction while irrigating the land by the plaintiffs. The defendants did not file any appeal against the aforesaid order and that order has attained finality during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs filed an application in the trial court under Section 151 CPC for providing police aid to ensure compliance of the order dated 11th May, 2006 on the ground that defendants are violating the order passed by the trial court. The trial court rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 26th August, 2006 and observed that the plaintiffs have already filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC; and so far as the present application is concerned, the same requires evidence and no order can be passed on the same. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiffs have preferred the present writ petition.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting their application under Section 151 CPC for providing police aid to ensure compliance of the injunction order dated 11th May, 2006 only by observing that an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC has already been filed by the plaintiffs and the present application cannot be decided without any evidence, whereas the present application was altogether different than the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC wherein no order for compliance of the order can be passed and only the punishment order can be passed therein, therefore, it was necessary for the trial court to pass necessary order on their application under Section 151 CPC.;