JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 6.7.96 passed by the District Collector, Udaipur whereby invoking the power under Order 39, Rule 2 A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short "CPC" hereinafter) the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation to the respondent no. 2 for alleged disobedience of stay order dated 24.2.96 passed by the District Collector, Udaipur in the proceedings under section 27 A of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 ( in short "the Act of 1953" hereinafter) directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the land in question. 2. In revenue village Sukher, some abadi plots were auctioned by Gram Panchayat, Bhuvana. One Shri Shyam Lal s/o Mohan Lal Chitara purchased a plot on 6.2.83 for consideration of Rs.7,500/-. Shri Shyam Lal sold the said plot to the petitioner herein by way of registered sale deed. The respondent no. 2 filed a complaint before the District Collector, Udaipur stating therein that the plot in question forms part of the public way therefore, the allotment made deserved to be cancelled. The complaint was registered by the District Collector, Udaipur as revision petition under section 27 A of the Act of 1953 read with Rule 272 of Rajasthan Panchayat General Rules, 1961. On 24.2.96, the District Collector issued an ex parte interim order addressed to the Tehsildar , Girwa directed him to ensure that status quo is maintained by both the parties with regard to the disputed plot. 3. The respondent no. 2 filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2 A read with 151 CPC before the District Collector stating therein that in violation of the stay order granted the petitioners herein have raised construction over the plot in question and the public way has been closed by putting a gate over there. The application was contested by the petitioner herein by filing a reply thereto. The allegations contained in the application were denied and an objection was raised that the application preferred under Order 39, Rule 2 A is not maintainable. 4. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the District Collector found the petitioners guilty of violation of the interim order and accordingly, invoking the power under Order 39, Rule 2 A the petitioners have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation to the respondent no. 2. Hence, this petition. 5. 4. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the District Collector found the petitioners guilty of violation of the interim order and accordingly, invoking the power under Order 39, Rule 2 A the petitioners have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation to the respondent no. 2. Hence, this petition. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector functioning under the Act of 1953 or Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is not a court and there is no order under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC therefore, the District Collector had no jurisdiction to invoke the power under Order 39, Rule 2 A CPC. 6. Indisputably, temporary injunction is a judicial process issued by the court of competent jurisdiction during the pendency of the suit whereby the party to the suit is required to do or refrain from doing any particular act. The District Collector exercising the revisional power under section 27 A of the Act of 1953 as delegate of the State Government is not a court and the provisions of Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 has no application in such proceedings pending before him. Thus, the order impugned passed by the District Collector invoking the power under Order 39, Rule 2 A for alleged disobedience of stay order dated 24.2.96 passed by him in the revision proceedings under section 27 A of the Act of 1953 is ex facie without jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 6.7.96 is quashed. No order as to costsWrit Petition Allowed. *******