1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Rampratap Chopra V/s. Jhanjhu Ram & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8605/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :: August 6, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Sumit Khandelwal for the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur East, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC, in order to obtain assistance of the police authority for compliance of the order dated 02.09.2009, the interim order passed by the trial Court itself, the petitioner has approached this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed a civil suit for declaration of relinquishment deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 as null and void. Along with the suit, the petitioner had also filed an application for temporary injunction. Vide order dated 02.09.2009, the 2 learned trial Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo on the land in dispute. However, subsequently the petitioner learned that the respondents are constructing on the said land in violation of the interim order passed by the learned trial court. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC for seeking direction from the Court for Police Station Karni Vihar to remove the said construction which was being done in violation of the interim order. However, after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court has dismissed the said application ostensibly on the ground that the Court under Section 151 CPC would not exercise its power when there are already provisions under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC in existence for passing the necessary ordes. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the logic given by the learned trial Court is legally unsustainable. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Once it was brought to the notice of the learned trial Court that its interim order is being violated by respondent Nos. 1 & 2, even if the wrong provision of law had been mentioned in the application, the learned trial Court could certainly have 3 invoked its power under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and should have passed the necessary orders. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.04.2010 and remanding the case back to the learned trial Court for invoke its power under Order 39 Rule 2A and for passing the necessary order in accordance with law. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-