GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. LOKESH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this revision petition is to the order passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mahendergarh, dated 14.11.1998.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once art order of injunction is issued by the Court, it has no inherent jurisdiction to direct police help and the only remedy left with the party in whose favour injunction has been issued, is to invoke the provisions pf Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In other words, existence of provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A ousts the inherent jurisdiction of Court to pass the orders like the one impugned in this revision.

(3.) It is a settled principle of law that in the administration of justice, Civil Courts, as a necessary corollary to its very existence, must be deemed to possess inherent powers and jurisdiction. This more so where the power is exercised by the Court to achieve the ends of justice or to undo the wrongs during the pendency of proceedings before the Court. The inherent powers also do not confer on the Court any additional jurisdiction to amplify the powers specified in the Code. These are the powers which are in addition to complementary powers expressly conferred upon the Court under the provisions of the Code. It is also an equally settled principle of the law that if express provisions are provided for directing a particular act in a particular manner, inherent powers cannot be used to frustrate such limitations of the Court. The jurisdiction vested in the Court under the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a jurisdiction ex debito justitiae are certainly not ousted merely on the existence of another remedy (see A.I.R. 1997 S.C 1348, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1899, A.I.R. 1987 Bombay 182, A.I.R, 1944 Lahore 165 and 1946 Punjab Law Reporter 111).