JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. By way of instant petition, petitioners have assailed order dated 18.11.2023, passed by learned Civil Judge, Jubbal camp at Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 130-6 of 2023. 2. Petitioners are defendants beside others in Civil Suit No. 381 of 2023, pending before learned Civil Judge, Jubbal camp at Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. The respondent herein is the plaintiff. 3. Plaintiff has filed the above noted suit for partition of immovable property marked in the plaint as suit property claiming it to be joint between the parties. In addition to above, decree for rendition of account, recovery of money and permanent prohibitory injunction, has also been sought. 4. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff has filed an application for interim injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from changing the nature of suit property/structures by raising constructions in any manner during the pendency of the suit. 5. On 10.10.2023, learned Trial Court passed the following order on application for interim relief: “Let matter be listed for filing reply on 13.10.2023, till then both parties are directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession over the suit land.” 6. Order dated 10.10.2023 was further extended till 13.12.2023, vide order dated 13.10.2023. 7. On 07.11.2023, plaintiff filed an application before learned Trial Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a prayer to direct the police to implement order dated 10.10.2023. It was alleged that despite the direction to the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession over the suit land, defendant had started construction of 2nd floor of the building situated over part of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 1444. Defendant contested the application. 8. Learned Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 18.11.2023, allowed the application and directed the police to implement the order dated 10.10.2023, with the further direction to the revenue officials to assist the police, if required. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 10. Learned Senior Counsel representing the defendants has contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as the order dated 10.10.2023 was only an ad interim order and had not attained finality. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 10. Learned Senior Counsel representing the defendants has contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as the order dated 10.10.2023 was only an ad interim order and had not attained finality. He placed reliance upon judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Dalip Singh vs. Geeta Ram, 1994 (Supp.) Shimla Law Cases 445 and Varinder Kumar Madan vs. Kali Ram, Civil Revision No. 56 of 2016, decided on 23.08.2016. 11. The factual aspect of the matter is that the defendants have not filed their written statement or reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before learned Trial Court. Defendants have also not taken any steps to challenge orders dated 10.10.2023 and 13.10.2023. 12. Noticeably, both the above orders i.e. 10.10.2023 and 13.10.2023, have been passed in the presence of learned counsel for the defendants. 13. The facts of the cases in Dalip Singh’s and Varinder Kumar Madan’s (supra) were not identical to the facts of the instant case. In Dalip Singh’s case, the order which was sought to be implemented had been passed ex-parte. Thereafter, defendants had filed their written statement and reply. It was in such circumstances that this Court had observed that instead of granting police help, it would have been proper for learned Trial Court to decide the application for interim injunction finally. In Varinder Kumar Madan’s case, though the final order has been passed on interim application, the same was pending in appeal and in such circumstances, this Court had observed that the inherent powers should not have been availed when the alternative efficacious remedy was availed. 14. It will be travesty of justice in case an order passed by Court of competent jurisdiction is violated and the violator is let off on the ground that the order passed by the Court was still at ad interim stage. The order passed by the Court at any stage of the case has equal efficacy and no one can be allowed to violate such order, else, it will be damaging the very concept of justice. Thus, it cannot be a rule that the order passed by the Court at ad interim injunction cannot be implemented. 15. The order passed by the Court at any stage of the case has equal efficacy and no one can be allowed to violate such order, else, it will be damaging the very concept of justice. Thus, it cannot be a rule that the order passed by the Court at ad interim injunction cannot be implemented. 15. For the reasons as discussed above, contention so raised by the learned Senior Counsel representing the defendants deserves rejection. 16. Though the defendants, by way of their reply to application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff, had denied the allegation of violation of order dated 10.10.2023, but the same was not sufficient to deter learned Trial Court from exercising its jurisdiction. The direction was to the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the property. Since, the allegation of the plaintiff was with respect to the construction being raised by the defendants, the fact was easily verifiable. No prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendants by the impugned order as nothing could be done against them in case the violation of order by way of raising of further construction was not found on spot. 17. Even otherwise, the defendants without approaching the learned Trial Court for vacation/modification of an interim order passed by the Court, have directly rushed to this Court, that too, in the circumstances where no prejudice was going to be caused to the rights of defendants by implementation of impugned order. 18. In result, there is no merit in the petition and as such, the same is dismissed. 19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.