Courts have inherent power to perform judicial acts on holidays in cases of emergency, and Section 21(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958, is a protective provision that confers on courts this power.

( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of I. A. No. 1858 of 1981, submitted in Civil Revision No. 416 of 1981, which has been made on identical facts and poses the similar question of law.

( 2 ) SHORTLY put the facts leading to the submission of the revision and the aforesaid application in this Court are as under : Dwarkadas, the plaintiff-nonapplicant (in C. R. No. 415/81) has instituted a Civil Suit No. 43a of 1981, for issuance of a permanent injunction against the applicants-herein in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Maheshwar, on the allegations that he is a lax payer of the petitioner Nagar Palika, Maheshwar; that there ig a contract between the petitioner Nagar Palika and himself for supply of water by main line pipe connection; that the petitioner Nagar Palika wants to disconnect the water supply from the main line and give connection instead from a side line and thus wants to deprive him of taking water supply from the main line. However, the nagar Palika has no right to do so. Accordingly, a decree for issuance of a permanent injunction was claimed restraining the petitioner Nagar Palika from disconnecting the water supply from the main line pipe connection.

( 3 ) IN the suit the plaintiff-non-appli-cant submitted an application for issuance of a temporary injunction, which was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that they want to divert the connection from main line to the branch line; that too on the basis of technical report and instructions from the Public Health engineering Department; that in this process the plaintiff will not suffer any injury, which may be made the foundation for the suit,

( 4 ) THE trial Court after hearing arguments, by order dated 9-5-1981 granted a temporary injunction restraining the applicants from diverting the pipe connection from main line to the branch line. After obtaining copy of the said order the petitioners-herein submitted a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the district Judge, West Nimar, Mandlesh-war, along with an application for stay of the operation of the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court at 3. 45 p. M. at the residence of the District Judge on 16-5-1981. However, by order dated 16-5-1981 the District Judge has refused to consider the application on the ground that the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to hear civil work during vacation and has ordered that the papers be kept in office to be placed before the Court for hearing on the opening day after vacation, i. e. on 15-6-1981. It is against this order that the petitioners have preferred revisions along with the aforesaid applications, coupled with an application for urgent hearing of the matter during summer vacation.

( 5 ) IT is contended by Shri Waliwade-kar, counsel for the applicants that the impugned order amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the District court and that Courts exist for doing justice and giving legal assistance to parties. That power to give interim reliefs in the matter of urgency has to be exercised even during summer vacation and that the considerations which have weighed with the learned District Judge are not relevant. It was, therefore, prayed that either operation of the temporary injunction granted by the trial court should be stayed or the learned District Judge should be directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner before him for the purpose.

( 6 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the matter, I feel that the impugned order manifests a clear case of refusal to exercise jurisdiction. The courts are constituted for the purpose of doing justice according to law and must be deemed to possess as a necessary corollary and as inherent in its very constitution, all such powers as may be necessary to do right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice. See Jaipur Mineral development Syndicate v. The Commr. of I.-T. New Delhi (AIR 1977 SC 1348 ). What happened by publication of l