JUDGMENT

P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — This writ petition has been filed chal¬lenging to the legality and the correctness of the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar on 21.4.2001 in Title Suit No.208 of 1996 and confirming judgment delivered on 11.10.2002 by the Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court No.2, Bhubaneswar in C.R. No.15/5 of 2002.

2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the opposite party is the defendant in Title Suit No.208 of 1996. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff No.2 is the son of the defendant. Plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit inter alia for the declaration that defendant is not entitled to evict them from the suit house or to sell it to strangers and to permanently injunct him in that respect. Plaintiffs filed Misc. Case No.220 of 1996 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction. Notwithstanding the objection of the defendant that the suit property is his self acquired property and he has every right to alienate the suit land and that he is required to do so because of the conduct of the plaintiff No.2 in not providing maintenance to him, learned Civil Judge granted temporary injunction. Defend¬ant preferred Misc. Appeal No.79 of 1996 and that was dismissed in the lower appellate Court. Defendant then filed Civil Revision No.114 of 1998 in this Court but the Civil Revision was not admitted. While disposing of that Civil Revision, this Court observed that-

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. It is obvious that if the petitioner is permitted to sell the suit property to any third party the very purpose of the suit will be defeated. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to admit this civil revision. However, the petitioner is given liberty to make appropriate application before the Trial Court for his mainte¬nance on the basis of agreement, if any, and if such application is made the trial Court will consider the same in accordance with law keeping in view that he has been restrained from selling his share.”

3. Thereafter, defendant filed an application purported to be under Section 151, C.P.C. with the prayer to direct the plain¬tiff No.2 to pay him maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month, in accordance with the agreement, i.e., the family settlement made in the family of plaintiffs and defendant on 16.11.1985. The Courts below have passed the impugned orders allowing monthly maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- in view of the above quoted observation of this Court and the terms and conditions in the said family settlement document, a Xerox coy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction in as much as the provision in Section 151, C.P.C. is mainly procedural ena¬bling the Court to invoke the inherent power to save the proceed¬ing from abuse of process of Court and therefore, a substantive relief cannot be granted by invoking that provision. In support of that contention, he relies on the ratio in the case of Goriv¬elli Appanna v. Gorivelli Seethamma, A.I.R. 1972 A.P.62. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that equity does not stand in favour of the petitioners in as much as the family settlement document, Annexure-1, indicates that the total family property and assets were valued at Rs.1,16,000/- and while re¬ceiving his share including the furnitures and wooden articles etc. it was settled that a total sum of Rs.18,000/- in three equal instalments of Rs.6,000/- was to be received by the defendant. Such amount having already been paid to the defendant the latter has no legitimate claim over the suit properties and apart from that the circumstances in which the plaintiffs agreed to the recital regarding payment of monthly maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- that has been explained in the plaint and in that respect proper relief has also been sought for in the suit. Acco