Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Devi Prasad Singh, J.
Mohd. Hamja —Petitioner
versus
Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Lucknow
& Ors —Respondents
W.P. No. 1119 of 2010
Decided on 09.03.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Yogesh Kesarwani Advocate.
For the Respondent: CSC
IMPORTANT POINTS
(i) Order 39 of the Code does not expressly or by necessary implication precludes the exercise of the inherent power of court under section 151.
(ii) Judicial officers or judges should always be alert to ensure that their orders are complied with by persons or authorities concerned.
Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Section 151—Temporary injunction—Non-compliance thereof —Trial Court rejected the plaintiff’s /petitioner’s prayer stating that petitioner should move an application u/o 39 Rule 2A – Held – Order 39 of the Code does not expressly or by necessary implication precludes the exercise of the inherent power of court under Section 151 —Court has ample power to enforce its order —Local authorities are directed ensure the compliance of injunction granted by court. (Paras 6 to 8)
(ii) Compliance of Order – Duty of court—Courts posses two folds of duty —First, for the purpose to secure statutory and constitutional right delivery of judgment or pass an order or direction to meet the ends of justice—Secondly to ensure that order passed by it while dispensing justice is implemented in its letter and spirit—These are the basic tenets of rule of law—Judicial officers or judges should always be alert to ensure that their orders are complied with. (Para 6)
Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Learned Chief Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of opposite parties No.1 and 2.
2. Issue notice to opposite party No.3 returnable at an early date.
3. Petitioner had filed a regular suit No. 356 of 2004, Mohd. Hamja v. Zia-u-deen pending in the Court of Civil judge, Senior Division (Court No.24) Lucknow. Temporary injunction was granted by the trial court on 15.10.2004 and 17.12.2005 directing the parties to maintain status quo.
4.1t has been alleged that the defendant respondent in violation of order passed by the Court is raising construction and also removing the trees standing over the land in question. Feeling aggrieved with the non-compliance of order passed by the Trial court, petitioner has moved an application with the prayer that defendant respondent may be restrained from changing the nature of land, cutting the trees and raising construction over the land in question. Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division had rejected the plaintiff petitioner’s prayer stating that petitioner should move an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. No order could be passed in pursuance to provision contained in Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Prima facie, order passed by the Civil Judge, at the face of record, seems to be not sustainable. Power to proceed for contempt of Court under Order 39 Rule 2A is deals with different subjects then the power of the court to maintain status-quo and ensure of the compliance of its order with the aid of police or authorities.
5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in M/s. Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Private Ltd. Barabanki (U.P.) v. Kanhayalal Bhargava & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1899 held that the court is competent to make suitable order under Section 151 of the CPC as may be necessary for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of court. There is nothing in Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure which expressly or by necessary implication precludes the exercise of the inherent power of Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In one another case reported in Vikas Aggarwal v. Anubha, 2004(4) SCC 468 their Lordship of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the code of civil procedure can always be exercised to advance interests of justice and the technicalities will have no place in such matters. Order 39 of the Code does not expressly or by necessary implication preclude the exercise of inherent power by the court under Section 15 I of the CPC. Court may pass appropriate suitable order to meet out the ends of justice.
In one another case reported in Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geevarghese & Ors., 2004(6) SCC 378 their Lordship of Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principle and held that in appropriate matter court may pass appropriate order to meet out the ends of justice. It has been held that inherent power of the court is to do justice in addition to and complementary to powers conferred under CPC, expressly or by implication.
6. In a democratic and civilized society while dispensing justice courts posses two folds of duty. For the purpose to secure statutory and constitutional right delivery of judgment or pass an order or direction to meet the ends of justice and secondly to ensure that order passed by it while dispensing justice is implemented in its letter and spirit by the parties or authorities concerned. These are the basic tenets of rule of 1aw in a civilized society so far as courts are concerned. Failure on the part of court to insure the ends of justice may result into destruction of rule of law creating chaos in the society and breaking up social order. Accordingly, judicial officers or judges should always be alert to ensure that their orders are complied with by persons or authorities concerned.
7. In view of above, the court has got ample power to enforce its order. Local authorities or officers concerned may be directed to e
