The court has inherent power to have its orders carried out, including temporary injunctions.

1. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated May 21, 1989 payed by learned Munsiff cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Khetri in execution application No. 4/89 Rohitas & Ors. Vs. Mohan and Ors, whereby compliance of order dated Sept.5, 1988 passed by the same court was requested. The trial court had accepted a temporary injunction application (No. 173/87) and petitioner-defendants were restrained from interfering with the installation of pump-set on the we11 in dispute.

2. Non-pelitioner plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the defendants- petitioners in the court of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate Khetri stating therein that there is a well in agricultural land bearing Khasra No 2967. It was further stated that the non-Petitioner -plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the agricultural land alongwith well situated therein. They had been cultivating the agricultural land since long. They had purchased an engine to install the same on the said well for irrigating the field by taking water from the well but the petitioner-defendants were not allowing them to do so. The non petitioners also moved an application under Order 39 Rule l & 2 CPC. The non-petitioner-defendants also moved an application claiming the land and the well to be in their possession and further alleging that they were cultivating the same. After hearing bath the parties the trial court passed order Dated September 5, 1988 by which application for issue of temporary injunction against the petitioner-defendants was accepted and they were restrained from opposing/creating obstacles against the plaintiff-non-petitioners in installing the pumping set on the disputed well.

3. On May 21, 1989 plaintiff-non-petitioners filed an execution application before the trial court alleging that the defendant-non-petitioners were not allowing the plaintiff non-petitioners to install the pumping set on the well. It was prayed that the compliance of the order of the court be made and a Commissioner may be appointed to get the order dated September 5, 1988 executed. Thereupon the learned trial court passed an order dated May 12, 1989 by which a Commissioner was appointed to go to the site and get the pumping set installed on the well situated in Khasra No. 2967.

4. The contention of Shri Sajjan Singh learned counsel for the petitioner- defendants is that the plaintiff-non-petitioners cannot legally move any execution application in the trial court for execution of the impugned order. It is contended that the temporary injunction has been issued under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. and if the same is not obeyed the only remedy available to the plaintiff-non-petitioners is to file application under Rule 2-A of Order 39 for contempt of the order of the Court. Therefore the court can punish the non petitioner-plaintiffs for disobedience of the order of the Court as provided in Rule 2-A of Order 39 C.P.C. Unless a decree has been passed by the trial court in favour of the non-petitioner-plaintiffs no execution can be filed merely against an order.

5. It is contended by Shri M. M. Ranjan learned counsel for the non- petitioner-plaintiffs that Section 6 C.P.C. has been substituted by Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 and word order' now appears in the same. Therefore the trial court has rightly directed to execute the impugned order. Reliance has been placed on (1) Venkat Niloba Kabade Vs. Kishan Dadarao Dhumal 1983 Mab. L.J. 1105=(1984)l Bom. C.R. 74.

6. I have heard both the parties and also gone through the impugned order of the trial court.

7. The plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit in the trial court in which an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. was also filed. After hearing both the parties the trial court directed that the petitioner-defendants themselves or through anyone else should not put any obstacles in installation of pump set on the well situated in land bearing Khasra No. 2967 and further th