Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—This writ petition has been filed raising the grievance that in spite of the fact that Civil Court passed an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner in the pending Civil Suit No. 85 of 2003, the respondents are not ensuring the compliance thereof.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a road is being constructed, and for.that purpose, earth is being taken from the petitioner’s land. Being aggrieved, he filed a Civil Suit No. 85 of 2003, Satya Prakash & Ors. v. Chairman, Awas Abhiyanta & Ors. Vide order dated 31.5.2005 the Civil Court, while entertaining the Application for interim relief, directed the parties to maintain status quo. The copy of the said order was served upon the District Magistrate to ensure its compliance, but appropriate steps were not taken by him. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed another application under Section 151, CPC on 27.9.2005 for passing a more effective interim order but the said application is not being disposed of. Hence this petition.

3. Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once the Civil Court passed the order for maintaining status quo, it was the solemn duty of the respondents to ensure the compliance of the said order, and by not passing any order on the representation filed by the petitioners the District Magistrate acted in violation of the order of the Civil Court. The petitioners therefore filed another application under Section 151, CPC which is still pending consideration. Thus, this Court must direct the respondents to ensure the compliance of the order dated 31.5.2005, passed by the Civil Court.

4. On the other hand, Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the petition contending that only appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to move an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A, CPC and the application under Section 151, CPC is not maintainable. The petition should therefore be dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A, CPC.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Section 151 confers inherent power upon the Civil Court. It cannot be resorted to, to deal with an application for which there is a statutory provision. Thus, it is only in exceptional circumstances where there is no other remedy available under any statutory provisions, that can be taken to Section 151 CPC. Power to grant temporary injunction is under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, CPC. Court cannot therefore exercise the power and grant injunction under Section 151, C.P.C. (Vide Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993; Nain Singh v. Koonwarjee & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 997; and State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Karan Singh Binayak, (2002) 4 SCC 188).

7. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 it has been held as follows :

“There is difference of opinion between the High Courts on this point. One view is that a Court cannot issue an order of temporary injunction if the circumstances do not fall within the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code: Varadacharlu v. Narasimha Charlu, AIR 1926 Mad 258; Govindarajulu v. Imperial Bank of India, AIR 1932 Mad 180; Karuppayya v. Ponnuswami, AIR 1933 Mad 500; Murugesa Mudali v. Angamuthu Mudali, AIR 1938 . Mad 190; and Subramanian v. Seetaramma, AIR 1949 Mad 104, the other view is that a Court can issue an interim injunction under circumstances which are not covered by Order XXXIX of the Code, if the Court is of opinion that the interests of justice require the issue of such interim injunction; Dhaneshwar Nath v. Ghanshyam Dhar, AIR 1940 All 185; Firm Bichchha Ram Baburam v. Firm Baldeo Sahai Surajmal, AIR 1940 All 241; Bhagat Singh v. Jagbir Sawhney, AIR 1941 Cal 670 and Chinese Tannery Owners Association v. Makhan Lal, AIR 1952 Cal 560. We are of opinion that the latter view i