The court clarified that the existence of Order 39, Rule 2-A does not bar the exercise of power under Section 151, CPC to enforce an order of temporary injunction, emphasizing the necessity of restoring possession obtained in violation of such an order.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is preferred against the order dated 14-9-1990 passed by the Munsiff, sagar on LA. No. IV in O. S. No. 30 of 1989. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are as under:

( 2 ) THE instant respondent- rplaintiff, Saraswath amma had filed O. S. No. 30/1989 on the file of the Munsiff, Sagar praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner-defendant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of suit property which is a residential house. In the course of the said suit she had obtained a temporary injunction by an order dated 18-2-1989 against the defendant revision petitioner. When this was so it appears, according to the case made out by the instant respondent, that the defendant (revision petitioner) in violation of the order of temporary injunction with the aid of goondas removed the tiles of the house in question and dispossessed her from the suit house. Under these circumstances, the respondent filed the application at I A. IV praying to restore her possession after removing the defendant from the suit house.

( 3 ) THE said application at LA. IV was resisted by the petitioner on various grounds. Among other things, he appears to have contended that the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of the suit house at any time and that, therefore, the question of the former being dispossessed by the latter did not arise. He. also took up a contention that since there was no decree for possession the question of directing the defendant-revision petitioner to deliver the possession of the property to the plaintiffrespondent would not arise at all. He contended that the application at I. A. IV was untenable. On these grounds he prayed for the dismissal of the application at IA. IV.

( 4 ) THE Lower Court on a consideration of the submissions made on either side and for the reasons recorded in its impugned order allowed the application at LA. IV. Hence, the instant revision.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsels oneither side. The point for consideration is as to whether the order questioned in revision is legal and proper.

( 6 ) BEFORE considering the submissions madeon either side, it is necessary to mention here that at the time of argument a memo along with certified copies of the two documents mentioned therein were produced by the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such a memo cannot be countenanced as being not in accordance with the provisions of law.

( 7 ) SRI S. R. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Munsiff has erred in directing the revision petitioner to restore the possession to the instant respondent. In this connection, it was submitted by the learned counsel that having regard to the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC it was not permissible for the Lower Court to have recourse to any provisions in the Code of Civil procedure, even assuming for the time being that the allegation made by the respondent before the lower Court in his application at I A. IV is correct. In this connection, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision in Manchegowda and Another v M. Madaiah, 1987 (1) Kar. L. J. 119; apart from relying on the decision in Narasimhappa v Hanumanthappa, 1976 (2) Kar. L. J. Short Notes of cases - Item No. 40 - page 33, which is referred to and relied on in Manchegowda's case. Reliance is also placed on the decision in Madegowda v State of Karnataka, ilr 1985 Kar. 3945. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision in m. S. Suresh v K. V. Sudhakar, AIR 1987 Kar. 249. Placing reliance on these decisions, the learned counsel contended that Order 39, Rule 2a is a self contained provision providing for the remedy to the aggrieved party in the event of disobedience to an order of temporary injunction issued under Order 39, Rule 1 and/or Rule 2, cpc. In that view of the