JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Musudi Babji, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. This Court has sifted through the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Sub-Collector, Rampachodavaram (respondent No.3) (Ex.P1). The impugned order (Ex.P1) has vividly dealt with the long standing disputes pending between the parties and it categorically stated that the appropriate remedy for the parties is to approach the Civil Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the plaint filed by the writ petitioner herein in OS No.2 of 2024 (Ex.P4). It transpires from the plaint that it is a suit filed for partition of the properties where the writ petitioner is seeking one third share. The unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein are arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the Tahsildar (respondent No.4 herein) has been arrayed as defendant No.5 in the suit. 4. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, in Abdul Moid and another v. District Magistrate, Bahraich and others, (2010) 81 ALR 581 = 2009 SCC OnLine All. 885, had already indicated that the Civil Court is a better forum to approach for seeking any interim relief in a pending suit rather than invoking the jurisdiction of a writ Court. The relevant portions of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench (Paragraphs 23 to 31) are usefully extracted hereunder : "23. Moreover, if the petitioner No.2 has any grievance in respect to the disobedience of the violation of the injunction order dated 11.11.1991, passed in Regular Suit No.1058 of 1991, then he has adequate remedy for redressal of his grievance under Section 151 CPC. 24. Section 151 CPC provides as under : 151. Saving of inherent powers of the Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The power of Section 151 CPC to pass order of injunction in the form of restoration of possession of the Code is not res integra now. 25. The inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC are wide and are not subject to any limitations. The power of Section 151 CPC to pass order of injunction in the form of restoration of possession of the Code is not res integra now. 25. The inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC are wide and are not subject to any limitations. Wherein violation of a stay order or injunction against a party, something has been done in disobedience, it will be the duty of the Court as a policy to set the wrong right and not allow the perpetuation of the wrong done. 26. The inherent power will not only be available in such a case, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interests of justice. 27. Even apart from Section 151 CPC, we observe that as a matter of judicial policy, the Court should guard against itself being stultified in circumstances like this by holding that it is not powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the Court's order. But in this case it is not necessary to go to that extent as we hold that the power is available under Section 151 CPC. 28. In the case of Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi, 2007 (1) ARC 336, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : "15. On a bare perusal of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said to be in dispute that Section 151 confers wide powers on the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 17. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, while dealing with the power of the Court to pass orders for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary order of injunction in the circumstances which are not covered under the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. 18. 18. At the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order. 19. It is also well settled that when in the event of utter violation of the injunction order, the party forcibly dispossesses the other, the Court can order restoration of possession to the party wronged." 29. Further, in the case of Manohar v. Hira Lal, AIR 1962 SC 527 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held : "While dealing with the power of the Court to pass orders in the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court, the Court has got inherent powers to pass an order under Section 151 CPC which confers wide power on the Court to make such orders as they may be necessary for the ends of justice, or prevent the abuse of the process of the Court." 30. Further, in the case of Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. Kanhayalal Bhargava, (2004) 11 SCC 177, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held : "The inherent power of a Court is in addition to and complementary to the power expressly conferred under the Code. But that power will not be exercised if its exercise is inconsistent with, or comes into conflict with, any of the powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the other provisions of the Code. If there are express provisions exhaustively covering a particular topic, they give rise to a necessary implication that no power shall be exercised in respect of the said topic otherwise than in the manner prescribed by the said provisions. Whatever limitations are imposed by constructions on the provisions of Section 151 of the Code, they do not control the undoubted power of the Court conferred under Section 151 of the Code to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court." 31. Whatever limitations are imposed by constructions on the provisions of Section 151 of the Code, they do not control the undoubted power of the Court conferred under Section 151 of the Code to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court." 31. As discussed above, the Court has inherent power under Section 151 CPC to prevent the abuse of process of the Court by any of the parties. In these circumstances, once the petitioner No.1 had already filed an application under Section 151 CPC as directed by this Court and the same is still pending and the matter is sub-judice, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and the same position is also existing in respect of the grievance of the petitioner No.2 who has raised grievance in respect to the disobedience or violation of injunction order granted on 11.11.1991 in Regular Suit No.10548 of 1991 for which the petitioner No.2 too has remedy under Section 151 CPC for redressal of his grievance." 5. Having regard to the above facts, this Court is also of the opinion that the dispute between the parties can only be resolved through the civil suit which has already been filed by the writ petitioner. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to approach the Civil Court for seeking appropriate interim relief in OS No.2 of 2024. 8. Interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.