Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.— Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate whereas notice for opposite parties no. 2 to 4 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. For the order proposed to be passed notice to opposite parties no. 5 to 29 are hereby dispensed with. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has filed Regular Suit No. 1270 of 2012 (Rajendra Bahadur Singh Vs. Jag Prasad and others) for grant of permanent injunction in which the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. was also filed. Learned trial court vide order dated 21.12.2012 had allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession over the property in question and also restrained the defendants from illegal encroachment over the land in question. The said order was duly communicated to the parties concerned, however, the defendants disturbed the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question and tried to cut the standing sugarcane crops. In this regard petitioner informed the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 but the State Authorities did not ensure the compliance of the injunction order granted by the trial court. Petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 151 C.P.C. before the trial court for ensuring the implementation of injunction order granted by the said court. The learned trial court by impugned order has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner as not maintainable. It is submited that learned trial court has inherent power to ensure the compliance of its own order and as such the application under Section 151 C.P.C. was fully maintainable. It is further submitted that the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. is moved in case the disobedience of the order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 has been committed for punishment of the contemnor. The application moved under Section 151 C.P.C. cannot be rejected simply because the procedure under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A is prescribed for the Court to punish the person for disobedience of its order. In support of his submission he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Hamja Vs. The application moved under Section 151 C.P.C. cannot be rejected simply because the procedure under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A is prescribed for the Court to punish the person for disobedience of its order. In support of his submission he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Hamja Vs. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Lucknow and others [2010(2) SCD 937] wherein the court has held that the court concerned has inherent power to ensure that its order is complied and for that purpose application under Section 151 C.P.C. is fully maintainable. Mr. Nripendra Mishra, holding brief of Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 on the other hand submitted that petitioner has not filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A and has simply moved the application under Section 151 C.P.C. which is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. I have considered the submissions made by parties counsel. The question as to whether application under Section 151 C.P.C. is maintainable, in cases, where temporary injunction has been granted under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 has been considered by this Court in the case of Mohd. Hamja (supra). The court has held that such application is fully maintainable as the court is competent to pass such orders under Section 151 C.P.C. as are necessary for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court. There is nothing in Order XXXIX C.P.C. which expressly or by necessary implication precludes the exercise of the inherent power of Court under Section 151 C.P.C. The relevant paragraph-9 of the judgment aforesaid on reproduction reads as under: "9. In view of above, the court has got ample power to enforce its order. Local authorities or officers concerned may be directed to ensure the compliance of injunction granted by the Court. The court has got ample power to direct the police to ensure that no construction should be raised and parties may not remove any structure standing over the disputed land in terms of injunction granted by the Court. It should be paramount consideration of court to ensure that rule of law should be maintained and orders of the court must be complied with in its letter and spirit. It should be paramount consideration of court to ensure that rule of law should be maintained and orders of the court must be complied with in its letter and spirit. Power to punish under the contempt procedure does not fulfill the requirement and in case court remain moot spectator and permit the parties or authorities to violate its order, damage may cause to parties and may suffer from irreparable loss and injury. Accordingly trial court should have issued appropriate direction or order to the local authorities and administration to ensure compliance of injunction granted by it in pursuance to inherent power conferred by Section 151 of the CPC and it shall be obligatory for the State authorities to comply with such order." In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 5.1.2013 contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition passed by the trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is accordingly set aside. The learned trial court is directed to consider the application under Section 151 C.P.C. preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above and pass necessary orders in this regard. The petitioner would be at liberty to move appropriate application under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. in case he so desires. In the event of filing of such case the court concerned shall consider and decide the said case filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A C.P.C. in accordance with law, expeditiously. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. _____________