Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Issuance of notice to the private oppo­site parties is dispensed with. 3. The petitioner has filed Regular Suit No.468/2008 with regard to Plot No.292/SA-4 situated in Village Dhawan Kotwali Chinhat District Lucknow. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow has granted in­junction but the same has not been complied with by the private respondents. Hence the petitioner moved an application under Or­der 39, Rule 2A of the C.P.C before the Ad­ditional District Magistrate, which is pend­ing consideration. 4. It has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that during the pendency of the ap­plication under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the C.P.C., the opposite parties are interfering with the peaceful possession of the land in question. The petitioner also appears to have made complaints against the private respon­dents to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and others higher authorities. An F.I.R. also ap­pears to have been lodged by the petitioner to ventilate his grievance. However, no ac­tion has yet been taken by the concerned au­thorities. In an identical controversy in the case of Mohd. Hamaja v. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.). Lucknow and others, reported in 2010 (28) L.C.D. 637 decided by one of us (Hon. D.P. Singh, J.) while considering the matter under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. It has been held that the Courts are competent enough to issue appropriate direc­tion to the District Administration/Police Au­thorities to ensure compliance of its order. 5. Relevant portion of the judgment is re­produced as under: "Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case re­ported in AIR 1966 SC 1899 (V53 C 384), M/s. Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Pri­vate Ltd. Barabanki (U.P.) v. Kanhaya lal Bhargava and others, held that the Court is competent to make suitable order under Sec­tion 151 of the C.P.C. As may be necessary for ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. There is nothing in Order 29 (sic-39) 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. There is nothing in Order 29 (sic-39) 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 2002 (2) SCC 468 : ( AIR 2002 SC 1796 ) (sic) Vikas Aggarwal v. Anubha 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 151 of the C.P.C. Court may pass appropriate suitable order to meet out the ends of justice. In one another case reported in 2004 (6) SCC 378 : ( AIR 2004 SC 3992 ), Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geevarghese and others, 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 C. P. C. Expressly or by implication." 6. The proposition of law and the finding recorded by this Court in the case of Mohd. Hamaja (supra) very well covers the present controversy. In a democratic and civilized so­ciety while dispensing justice, the Court has. ample power to enforce its order of any sort, like in the present case, the injunction order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow for the purpose of securing the statutory right of the petitioner. The Court may pass appropriate order in the ends of jus­tice. Meaning thereby, the Courts are not only expected to pass appropriate order to safe­guard the interest of the parties but also to ensure that the orders passed by it, are en­forced and implemented in letter and spirit and for that District authorities may be di­rected to do needful. 7. The Court may pass appropriate order in the ends of jus­tice. Meaning thereby, the Courts are not only expected to pass appropriate order to safe­guard the interest of the parties but also to ensure that the orders passed by it, are en­forced and implemented in letter and spirit and for that District authorities may be di­rected to do needful. 7. So far as, the jurisdiction under Order 39, Rule 2-A read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. or power conferred under Contempt jurisdiction is concerned, these are the puni­tive provisions to enforce the orders passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction hav­ing no jurisdiction to direct' district authori­ties to enforce its order. 8. In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition finally with a liberty to the pe­titioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction to get enforced the order passed, which shall look into the matter and pass appropriate orders after providing opportunity of being heard to the parties, expeditiously to ensure that order of the Court is complied with. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Order accordingly.