Sree Ram vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

Issuance of notice to the private opposite parties is dispensed with.

The Petitioner has filed Regular Suit No. 468/2008 with regard to Plot No. 292/ SA-4 situated in Village Dhawan Kotwali Chinhat District Lucknow. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow has granted injunction but the same has not been complied with by the private Respondents. Hence the Petitioner moved an application under Order 39, Rule 2A of the CPC before the Additional District Magistrate, which is pending consideration.

It has been submitted by the Petitioner''s counsel that during the pendency of the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the opposite parties are interfering with the peaceful possession of the land in question. The Petitioner also appears to have made complaints against the private Respondents to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and others higher authorities. An F.I.R. also appears to have been lodged by the Petitioner to ventilate his grievance. However, no action has yet been taken by the concerned authorities. In an identical controversy in the case of Mohd. Hamaja v. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.). Lucknow and Ors. reported in 2010 (28) L.C.D. 637 decided by one of us (Hon. D.P. Singh, J.) while considering the matter under Order 39, Rule 2A of the CPC It has been held that the Courts are competent enough to issue appropriate direction to the District Administration/Police Authorities to ensure compliance of its order.

Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:

Hon''ble Supreme Court in a case reported in Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kanhaya Lal Bhargava and Others, M/s. Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Private Ltd. Barabanki (U.P.) v. Kanhaya Lal Bhargava and Ors., held that the Court is competent to make suitable order u/s 151 of the CPC As may be necessary for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. There is nothing in Order 29 (sic-39) of the CPC which expressly or by necessary implication precludes the exercise of the inherent power of Court u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In one another case reported in : 2002 (2) SCC 468: (AIR 2002 SC 1796) (sic) Vikas Aggarwal v. Anubha their Lordship of Hon''ble Supreme Court held that inherent powers of the Court u/s of the CPC can always be exercised to advance interests of justice and the technicalities will have no place in such matters. Order 39 of the Code does not expressly or by necessary implication preclude the exercise of inherent power by the Court u/s 151 of the CPC Court may pass appropriate suitable order to meet out the ends of justice.

In one another case reported in Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese and Others, their Lordship of Hon''ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principle and held that in appropriate matter Court may pass appropriate order to meet out the ends of justice. It has been held that inherent power of the Court is to do justice in addition to and complementary to powers, conferred under Code of Civil Procedure. Expressly or by implication.

The proposition of law and the finding recorded by this Court in the case of Mohd. Hamaja (supra) very well covers the present controversy. In a democratic and civilized society while dispensing justice, the Court has. ample power to enforce its order of any sort, like in the present case, the injunction order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow for the purpose of securing the statutory right of the Petitioner. The Court may pass appropriate order in the ends of justice. Meaning thereby, the Courts are not only expected to pass appropriate order to safeguard the interest of the parties but also to ensure that the orders passed by it, are enforced and implemented in letter and spirit and for that District authorities may be directed to do needful.

So far as, the jurisdiction under Order 39, Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the CPC or power conferred under Contempt jurisdiction is concerned, these are the punitive provisions to enforce the orders passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction having no jurisdiction to direct'' district authorities to enforce its order.

In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition finally with a liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction to get enforced the order passed, which shall look into the matter and pass appropriate orders after providing opportunity of being heard to the parties, expeditiously to ensure that order of the Court is complied with.

Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of.