1. Rajinder Singh, a State Government employee, died in an automobile accident. His wife, Ratno Devi was engaged on compassionate grounds in government service, under SRO 43 of 1994. 2. A family settlement is stated to have been reached at between Ratno Devi and her parents-in-law. 3. In terms of the settlement, Ratno Devi had to relinquish her right to receive compensation payable for the death of her husband in the motor vehicular accident, in favour of her parents-in-law. Her parents-in-law had agreed to pay her an amount of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of her dowry and ornaments. That apart they had conceded her right to government service in place of her husband. 4. Alleging violation of the settlement-Agreement, the parents of the deceased filed a suit against Ratno Devi seeking declaration besides enforcement of the terms of the agreement, in the Court of Munsiff, Ramban. 5. Saying that her parents-in-law had been cruel to her after the death of her husband, who had, besides turning her out of the house, deprived her of the dowry valuing more than Rs. 60,000/-, Ratno Devi had controverted respondents plaint questioning inter alia the legality and valid execution of the agreement which had been relied upon by her parents-in-law. 6. An application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by her parents-in-law seeking issuance of interim directions against Ratno Devi, during the pendency of the suit. 7. Allowing the application, learned Munsiff, Ramban has, vide his order of March 07, 2008 directed payment of half of Ratno Devis monthly salary to the respondents. 8. Aggrieved by, and seeking setting aside of the impugned order, Ratno Devi petitioner has invoked this Courts Revisional jurisdiction through this Revision Petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. 10. Perusal of learned Munsiffs order indicates that he has virtually re-written the provisions of SRO 43 of 1994, providing right of employment to the parents of the deceased employee, as well. 11. He, in my opinion, has thus acted beyond his jurisdiction in entering into legislative arena, which power is not vested in the courts. 12. Making of laws is the exclusive domain of the legislature. Courts have absolutely no role to play in this field, for the jurisdiction it possesses is only of the true and correct interpretation of the laws framed in exercise of legislative power. 12. Making of laws is the exclusive domain of the legislature. Courts have absolutely no role to play in this field, for the jurisdiction it possesses is only of the true and correct interpretation of the laws framed in exercise of legislative power. Power of interpretation of laws does not contemplate legislation of laws as such. The courts are, therefore, required to be within the bounds of their jurisdiction. 13. The State Government had not, in its wisdom, considered it fit and appropriate to allow benefit of compassionate appointment, in the event of the death of a serving employee, to his parents. In this view of the matter, learned Munsiff had, therefore, absolutely no jurisdiction to observe that parents of the deceased were required to be included as beneficiaries under the SRO, particularly when it was not seized of any such dispute in the respondents suit. 14. Inherent powers of the courts to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court which section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure saves, pertains only to such matters which the courts have the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon. No court has the inherent power to invest itself with jurisdiction, not conferred on it, by law. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, not being a substantive provision, may not thus confer any right on a litigant to get any relief of any kind whatsoever. It is a mere procedural provision which enables a party to have proceedings, in a pending lis, conducted in a manner consistent with justice and equity. 15. That apart, learned Munsiff has erred in expressing his views accepting respondents case without there being any prima facie evidence to support such conclusion. As the legality and the valid execution of the agreement relied upon by the respondents had yet to be gone into, on the basis of the evidence of the parties, so learned Munsiff was not right in observing that respondents had fallen prey to the tricks of the petitioner. The defence projected by the petitioner in her written statement appears to have escaped learned Munsiffs notice as no reference thereto has been made by him while passing the impugned order. 16. The course adopted by learned Munsiff is thus unwarranted besides being unjustified. The defence projected by the petitioner in her written statement appears to have escaped learned Munsiffs notice as no reference thereto has been made by him while passing the impugned order. 16. The course adopted by learned Munsiff is thus unwarranted besides being unjustified. Petitioners right to salary which she has earned pursuant to her appointment under SRO 43 of 1994, cannot be curtailed or for that matter shared with the respondents who have absolutely no right on the earnings of the petitioner. 17. Order passed by learned Munsiff is thus without jurisdiction and unjustified. It is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 18. Allowing this petition, learned Munsiff, Rambans order of March 07, 2008 is, accordingly, set aside