JUDGMENT : 1. The challenge is made to the order no. 31 dated 5th September, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 528 of 2014, by which an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is rejected on contest. 2. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he is the monthly tenant in respect of a suit premises and the defendants have no right to create any obstructions and disturbances in peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof. A permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff/petitioner from the suit shop room without due process of law. 3. It has been alleged in the plaint that he was inducted as a tenant in respect of a shop room measuring about 465 sq. ft. with asbestos shed lying and situated at premises no. B/37A, Bapuji Nagar, P. S. Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 092 on the basis of an agreement dated 28th February, 1990 at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- per month initially for a period of three months and thereafter Rs.1,000/- per month according to English Calendar. 4. Subsequently an agreement for development of the suit property was entered into between landlord/owner and the plaintiff/petitioner on 14th May, 2004. The owner/landlord died on 25th July, 2008 leaving behind his only daughter, the defendant no. 1 in the suit. The development agreement was assigned in favour of M/s. G. G. Construction on 31st July, 2009, but thereafter it was mutually agreed for cancellation of not only the said development agreement but also the assignment made in favour of a third party. Accordingly, a deed of cancellation was executed in the month of January, 2011 by and between the parties. 5. The sum and substance of the case made out in the plaint is that the plaintiff is the monthly tenant in respect of a shop room and cannot be evicted without due process of law. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts an application for injunction was filed in the Trial Court and was moved on December 22, 2014. An ad interim order of injunction was passed restraining the defendants from causing any obstructions/disturbances in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property without due process of law. 6. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts an application for injunction was filed in the Trial Court and was moved on December 22, 2014. An ad interim order of injunction was passed restraining the defendants from causing any obstructions/disturbances in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property without due process of law. 6. It is not in dispute that the said order of injunction was in force till the Trial Court passed the impugned order. Amidst pendency of the injunction application as well as the ad interim order of injunction, the plaintiff/petitioner took out an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging dispossession by force and prayed for restoration of possession. 7. In the impugned order the Trial Court observed that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff/petitioner raises bona fide doubts over the possession in respect of the suit property and proceeded to vacate the ad interim order of injunction. It is revealed from the impugned order that the suit shop room has been found to be in occupation of defendant no. 4, who asserts that the plaintiff/petitioner was never in possession thereof. 8. The fact remains that an application for injunction is still pending. The Court has virtually proceeded to decide the injunction application while disposing of an application under Section 151 of the Code taken out on an allegation that the dispossession took place on the teeth of an order of injunction. 9. This Court further found that certain observations recorded in the impugned order have virtually decided the injunction application and it would be futile exercise if the injunction application is subsequently decided. It is a settled law that the Court should not invoke inherent power enshrined under Section 151 of the Code if there is an express provision provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. It appears that the Trial Court has proceeded as if it is dealing with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code, though the scope of an application under Section 151 of the Code is limited. 11. This Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order. 12. The Trial Court is directed to hear out the injunction application as well as the instant application, being the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, together and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. 13. 11. This Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order. 12. The Trial Court is directed to hear out the injunction application as well as the instant application, being the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, together and shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. 13. Both the learned advocates representing the respective parties submit that certain facts are required to be brought to the notice of the Court and pray for leave to file supplementary affidavit. 14. Such leave is granted to both the parties to file supplementary affidavit within a week from date. The Counter affidavit shall be filed by the respective parties to the said supplementary affidavit within a week thereafter. 15. The Trial Court shall dispose of both the applications viz. Injunction application and the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure within two weeks therefrom in accordance with law. 16. For abundant precaution it is hereby made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the injunction application as well as the application under Section 151 of the Code, which shall be decided by the Trial Court independently as per law without being influenced by any observations recorded hereinabove. 17. With the above observations this revisional application is disposed of. 18. There will be no order as to costs.