1. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein filed a suit for declaration of title and partition and also for declaration that the order passed by the Tahsildar, Gurur dated 4.3.2016 and the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 21.1.2016 is null and void. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC read with Section 178(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called as 'Code') that order passed by the Tahsildar, Gurur in Revenue Case No.24A/27/2011-2012 dated 4.3.2016 be stayed during the pendency of civil suit.

2. The trial Court by its impugned order allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein and stayed the order of the Tahsildar, Gurur dated 4.3.2016 directing partition.

3. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court granting application under Section 151 of the CPC, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit since there is specific provision for granting interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC that has not been invoked into and application under Section 151 of the CPC has been filed bypassing that provision and that has been allowed by the trial Court as the inherent power of the court to do justice is in addition to and complementary to powers conferred under CPC, expressly or by implication and object of Section 151 is to supplement and not to override or evade other express provisions of the CPC, therefore, the impugned order be set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr.P.P.Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.1, would submit jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC has rightly been exercised by the trial Court directing stay of partition proceeding till the disposal of civil suit. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matters of Mahohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 and Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese and others, (2004) 6 SCC 378.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. In a suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for declaration of title and partition, he has sought declaration that the order passed by the Tahsildar, Gurur directing partition dated 4.3.2016 is null and void. He did not claim any temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC and straightway filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC read with Section 178(1) of the Code. In fact, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 simply relied upon the provisions contained in Section 178 (1) of the Code that till the suit is decided, partition proceeding be suspended, whereas the partition proceeding has already been concluded and order of partition has already been passed.

8. It is well settled that the inherent power of the court to do justice is in addition to and complementary to powers conferred under CPC, expressly or by implication (See Vareed Jacob (supra). It is also well settled that object of Section 151 is to supplement and not to override or evade other express provisions of CPC or other statutes (See State of U.P. Vs. Roshan Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 488).

9. In the matter of Durgesh Sharma Vs. Jayshree, (2008) 9 SCC 648 the Supreme Court has held that inherent powers may be exercised ex debito justitiae in those cases, where there is no express provision in CPC. The said power cannot be exercised in contravention or in conflict of or ignoring express and specific provision of law.

10. Likewise, the Constitution Bench in the matter of Bharat Aluinium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552 has clearly held that a court's power to grant interim relief is traceable to Section 94 and in exceptional cases Section 151 CPC. It was observed as under:-

“192. So far as the Indian law is concerned, it is settled that the source of a court's po