Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—This writ petition reveals a very sorry state of affair, wherein the learned civil Court and the revisional Court expressed their inability to enforce the order passed by them, leaving the hapless litigant on the mercy of the so called police administration.

2. The present petitioner filed a Suit No. 477 of 2003 along with an application for injunction, under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called C.P.C.). The said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 15.7.2003. Being aggrieved, Revision No. 12 of 2003 was preferred and the revisional Court granted the injunction vide order dated 18.11.2004, to the effect that the respondents were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the petitioner in respect of the premises in dispute. The order passed by the revisional Court was not complied with. Therefore, petitioner filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. before the trial Court, which stood rejected vide order dated 2nd July, 2005, observing that once the order is passed by the civil Court, it is for the police administration to ensure its compliance. Therefore, the party may approach the police authorities. Unfortunately, revision preferred against the said order also stood dismissed vide order dated 28.7.2005, and Writ No. 319 of 2006 under Article 227 of the Constitution also stood dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 4.1.2006, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. Hence this petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of the interim injunction in her favour, the respondents are harassing and interfering with her peaceful possession, with all impunity, and the Courts below have expressed their inability observing that it is the duty of the police administration to enforce the orders passed by the Courts.

4. Order 39, Rule 2-A deals with the power to enforce the order passed by the Court and impose the punishment. It is settled legal proposition that any action taken in contravention of the order of the Court is a nullity as having been done in disobedience of the interim order of the Court. (Vide Mulraj v. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj, AIR 1967 SC 1386).

5. Similar view has been reiterated in Surjit Singh and others v. Harbans Singh and others, (1995) 6 SCC 50; and Govt. of A.P. v. Gudepu Sailoo and others, AIR 2000 SC 2297.

6. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221, has categorically held that the said provisions deal with the wilful defiance of the order passed by the civil Court.

7. In Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and others v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 1240, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a case of disobedience of an injunction passed under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C., wherein the contention was raised that the proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A cannot be initiated and no punishment can be imposed for disobedience of the order because the civil Court, which granted the injunction, had no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. The Apex Court rejected the contention holding that a party aggrieved of the order has a right to ask the Court to vacate the injunction pointing out to it that it had no jurisdiction or approach the higher Court for setting aside that order, but so long the order remains in force, the party cannot be permitted to disobey it or avoid punishment for disobedience on any ground, including that the Court had no jurisdiction, even if ultimately the Court comes to the conclusion that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. The party, who willingly disobeys the order and acts in violation of such an injunction, runs the risk for facing the consequence of punishment.

8. In Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan, AIR 1998 SC 2765, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of the power under Order 39, Rule 2-A C.P.C., the civil