JUDGMENT 1. - By this revision petition the petitioner has challenged the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur dated 5.11.98 by which he restrained the petitioner to raise construction and ordered the respondent No. 2 to get it stopped. He also passed an order that the Station House Officer of Police Station Shastri Nagar be informed that he may restrain the petitioner with immediate effect to raise construction. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. 3. M/s Sunmoon Printers filed a civil suit for permanent injunction alongwith which an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was submitted. In the miscellaneous proceedings the following order was passed- " ifj.kke% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS o vizkFkhZx.k dks ewyokn ds fu.kZ; rd ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ la0 1 izkFkhZ ds QSDVjh ,&12 b.MLV~h;y ,LVsV] tks/kiqj ds mRrj fn'kk esa mlds uksFkZ lkbZM lw;Z dh /kwi o jks'kuh ftldk mls vf/kdkj izkIr gks jgk Fkk o orZeku esa izkIr gks jgk gS mldks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ,slk dksbZ fuekZ.k ugha djs ftlls izkFkhZ ds uksFkZ lkbZM dh /kwi o jks'kuh dh izkfIr ds vf/kdkj esa dksbZ ck/kk iSnk gks ,oa ;g Hkh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ la0 2 ds fuekZ.k lEcU/kh fu;eksa o mifu;eksa dh ikyuk djrs gq, vizkFkhZ la0 1 viuk fuekZ.k djs o fu;eksa o mi & fu;eksa dh ikyuk dks lqfuf'pr djus gsrq vius fuekZ.k dk izLrkfor uD'kk vizkFkhZ la0 2 dks izLrqr djs o vizkFkhZ la0 2 izkFkh ds uksFkZ lkbZM lw;Z dh /kwi o jks'kuh ds mDr vf/kdkj dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fu;eksa ,oa mi & fu;eksa ds vuqlkj vizkFkhZ la0 1 dks fuekZ.k Lohd`fr iznku djs o vizkFkhZ la0 1 mDr Lohd`fr ds vuqlkj gh fuekZ.k djsA " 4. When the defendant petitioner did not stop raising construction, petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and thereafter an application under Section 151 CPC in which it was stated that the petitioner was raising his constructions despite the injunction order and the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. The trial court then sent a commissioner at the site and at that stage help of the police was not required. The trial court then sent a commissioner at the site and at that stage help of the police was not required. Then the plaintiff again moved an application on 22.10.98 under Section 151 CPC that despite the orders of the court the petitioner defendant was raising constructions day and night and had constructed underground portion without leaving set back and had raised pillars. Then again a commissioner was appointed who submitted his report on 24.10.98. The trial court was convinced that the petitioner was raising construction in defiance of the order granted under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 5. Reply of the petitioner defendant was that the plaintiff respondent Sunmoon Printers had based his application on wrong facts and hence was not maintainable. It was further averred that the police help could not be given in such a case and that earlier application of the plaintiff respondent was dismissed as the same was not pressed and the present application was barred by principle of res judicata. It was further averred that the petitioner was not contravening the order of the court and was raising his constructions according to the rules. The respondent No. 2 submitted his reply to the effect that the petitioner had not submitted any site plan as per order of the court and that on 24.9.98 a letter was written to the petitioner asking to submit site plan and raise constructions on his plot according to it. Shri R.K. Meghwal had submitted an affidavit in support of his reply. Learned trial Judge after hearing both the parties and after going through the record passed the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the trial court dated 17.8.98 was not certain. He submitted that the petitioner was raising his constructions as per the plan and that there was no necessity to obtain any permission from the RIICO so far as construction of underground portion is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that M/s. Sunmoon Printers has never made any complaint to any authority as to how much high the construction will be raised by the petitioner. He also submitted that the trial court has passed a new order by using Section 151 CPC which is contradictory to the earlier order dated 17.8.98. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that M/s. Sunmoon Printers has never made any complaint to any authority as to how much high the construction will be raised by the petitioner. He also submitted that the trial court has passed a new order by using Section 151 CPC which is contradictory to the earlier order dated 17.8.98. He also submitted that the petitioner was not interfering with the light which the plaintiff respondent M/s Sunmoon Printers obtains in his plot. He also submitted that if any construction was found raised in contravention of order, the same can be demolished after the trial of the suit. He has prayed that this revision petition may be allowed and the order be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the petitioner has not obtained any approval of the site plan from RIICO and that he is adamant on raising constructions which are not allowed according to the order dated 17.8.98. He is raising the construction with all impunity. It has been submitted that by raising the constructions the petitioner is likely to obviate the sun and light on the northern side of the defendant M/s. Sunmoon Printers. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has not followed the rules of the RIICO as ordered by order dated 17.8.98. It has also been submitted that no site plan was submitted to respondent No. 2 and no approval was obtained and the construction was being raised without obtaining any approval. It was also replied that there was no undertaking of petitioner that he would remove construction if ordered. 8. It is on record that on earlier occasion i.e. 24.9.98 the trial court had passed an order that at that time police help was not required for restraining the constructions and the court had ordered that Shri Mahendra Singh Chouhan, Advocate, be appointed as Commissioner. In my view, this would not amount to any res judicata to the application which was later on submitted by Sunmoon Printers plaintiff. The admitted position is that no site plan has been approved by the RIICO and the petitioner has never submitted any site plan. In my view, this would not amount to any res judicata to the application which was later on submitted by Sunmoon Printers plaintiff. The admitted position is that no site plan has been approved by the RIICO and the petitioner has never submitted any site plan. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not required, does not sound proper because there is an order of the court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to that effect. The order of the court has to be carried out. To say that the petitioner was not required to submit any site plan because it was not required under the rules, is not tenable. Even if the rules do not require, when the court had ordered to get the site plan approved from RIICO, there was no choice before the petitioner except to get the site plan approved. I was told during the arguments that an appeal was filed against the order dated 17.8.98 before the High Court in which arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved. It hardly matters. The order dated 17.8.98 existed when the impugned order was passed. The order as stood was that the petitioner will not raise any construction which may hamper sun and light of the defendant. He was also bound down to raise construction on his plot only when his proposed plan was approved by the RIICO which would ensure the rights of the defendants to get light and sun. No such plan was ever submitted to the RIICO and the argument of the learned counsel that it was not required, is not tenable. When the court had passed an order to get the site plan approved, the petitioner was bound by the order. If the petitioner was raising any construction inspite of all these clear directions by the court, the court was right in putting its foot down on the petitioner and order him not to raise constructions any more. In order to ensure the compliance of the order the court found it proper to order the police to see that the order is complied with. Such an order can very well be passed as it was so held in Kutubuddin v. Habib Khan, 1988(2) RLR page 908 , in which it was held that the court can exercise powers under Section 151 CPC for providing police help. Such an order can very well be passed as it was so held in Kutubuddin v. Habib Khan, 1988(2) RLR page 908 , in which it was held that the court can exercise powers under Section 151 CPC for providing police help. In 1995 Civ. Cr. page 337 (P & H), Mr. Thakur Dass v. Harijan Sudhar Samiti , when it was found that the defendant was trying to obstruct rights under injunction order and petition was moved for police help, it was found proper to issue appropriate instructions to the local police to help the petitioner to act in terms of injunction order and not beyond that. These two citations have been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. In this case I find from the record that the petitioner was raising construction day in and day out without any approval from the RIICO as per the order of the court. It was necessary to restrain him with police help. Therefore, to say that the court has substituted earlier order is not correct. The earlier order does exist but when the petitioner says that he was not required to get his site plan approved inspite of the order of the court, the court had no alternative but to handle the petitioner with a strict hand. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or wrong exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. 10. Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition and the same i^hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******