Mahipal And Others v. Jain Singh And Another
! " # $ %&
!
'
(#) * +,
----
+ # / & 0 1+2# !3
, $#& 1$#
,3* ( 45
&
4 6 7
) &
) &9 & ) )# & : )
'
+ &
#*
; # !
& 4
*
, 0 6& )
the defendants are hereby
restrained from interfering into the possession and from dispossessing the plaintiffs and other legal heirs of deceased Ratiram from the land detailed in paragraph no.2 of the plaint,
# 0 1+2# ! 3 6 & 0*
) +
$#&* (
) , 0 * #&
, 4 2 4#
, 4 #
4 # /
, &
5
),
1+2# !3
,&
) 0
#4<# 5 #
1+2# !3
# * , 0 * :&
, &
4 #
# =&
# *
6 85 & # 6
, ) + & 5*
%=;* ! % > #
9 , )
0 ?
#4) 65
,&
* 4
& 4 &
*
5
, # ,* 5 4 4
, ) # & # / #4) 4
% ! 4 ) / #4) , * 4
; # + !
% ! )4
@
#
4: 7
Gram Panchayat, Daroli Jat Vs. Smt. Lokesh Devi, 1999(2) PLR 741* &
) )
, ; # + ,
6 8# % !
, 4#
#
& 4 , ,
8#&) #
4 6
!
it has no inherent jurisdiction to direct police help and the only remedy left with the party in whose favour injunction has been issued, is to invoke the provisions pf Order 39 Rule 2A of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
"
# $% & '
! ( $ )
* It is true that provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A would come into play once an order of injunction is flouted by any person but that certainly do not divest the Court of its inherent powers and inherent jurisdiction. The Legislature while granting inherent powers to the Civil Courts under Section 151 of the Code, have without ambiguity worded the Section in a very wide language. The pervasive intent behind the provisions cannot be restricted as it would amount to acting contrary to the legislative intent. It would be a total mis2 construction of the Code to say that a Court in case where injunction order is passed in favour of the party, must wait till the time the order is flouted and then adopt the procedure provided under Order 39 Rule 2A upon an application of the party. In other words, the Court must sit and watch violation of its orders first and take no recourse to its inherent powers to see that the orders passed are implemented in their true spirit and substance.
+
"
(
The provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A, therefore, would not have the effect of frustrating or controlling the jurisdiction vested in the Court in exercise of inherent powers
under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and would prevent the abuse of process of Courts to meet the ends of justice.
,
---- . Every person is under a legal duty and obligation to comply and/or ensure compliance of the orders of the Court unless they are varied or altered. Furthermore, no person can be permitted to take the law in his own hands and to flout the orders of the Court. Inherent powers must come to the rescue of the person who inspite of an order of injunction is being threatened forcible dispossession in violation of the said order.
------ / "
! Infact, all that the order meant is that the SHO concerned should ensure compliance of the orders of the Court which has become final between the parties.......
0 / 4, * &
6 ) &
5 #)*
6& ) #
# 7
AThakur Das s Vs. Harijan Sudhar Samiti 1995(1) PLR 544*
#& * #5 : 5
*
@
4
&, @
# 6
:&
#
#
) 5&9) )& @ /
* # *
& 4
*
; # !
&
,
5
)
4 ) C
4 ) # /
, 8#*
&
5 #&
&#)
; # + , 4 8*
4 7
Gram Panchayat, Daroli Jat 1%# 3 8& ) &#) *
6 % , 5 6
5*
,
4 & *
& 4
* 4 ) 6
#
, ; # + 6 #
,& # :
)
, ; #
, # 8# , 2
6 %
, ! # ) 8# / , 5
& #5 4 & ) 9 # ) # ) ,
4
) : 6
6
#
6 % # 4 2 6&
/
* , 5
:& & & &
6
4 5 5& )* + * #5
) D, &#)
, # &
* ) 4
8# ),* )#
* ) 4 4 ,
5 )
* ) * 0 4 ( & ,6 4, #)* 0
6 , 4 #
=*
4& ) * , 4 ) & 5* ) ) !"!#
1 $%&'%&()*&+,-./0(&+)1.&23 &)01 $%&'%&((&*1('+45&3 &)01