Sathish Ninan, J.:— Petitioners are the defendants in a suit for prohibitory injunction against forceful eviction. In the suit, the plaintiff filed an application as IA 4427/14 seeking direction to the respondents to remove the lock installed by the defendants on the door of the plaint schedule room which obstructs access into it. The defendants filed IA 3606/14 to restrain the plaintiff from locking the room in question. As per order dated 09.07.2014 learned Munsiff directed sharing of key of the lock, between the parties.
2. Challenging the order, the plaintiff preferred CMA 55/14. As per judgment dated 20.07.15, the appellate court directed the defendants to remove the lock. The said judgment, though challenged before this Court in OP 1500/16, was dismissed as per judgment dated 02.03.17.
3. Since the direction in the CMA judgment was not complied with by the defendants, the plaintiff filed IA 9508/18 seeking implementation of the order by deputing an Amin. As per order dated 12.04.19, the learned Munsiff allowed the application and appointed an Amin to remove the lock. The CMA filed against the said order by the defendants was held to be not maintainable. It is accordingly that the defendants are before this Court in this original petition.
4. Heard learned counsel on either sides.
5. The contention of the petitioners that the order of the learned Munsiff is in the nature of a mandatory injunction against which an appeal would lie and therefore, the dismissal of the CMA on the ground of maintainability was illegal, is only to be rejected. The order in question is not in the nature of a mandatory injunction, but is only an order appointing an Amin to implement the judgment passed in the CMA. The learned District Judge was right in holding the CMA to be not maintainable.
6. The operative portion of the judgment in CMA reads thus:—
“….. the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to restore the petition schedule room by removing the lock, they put on the front door of the room so as to provide free access to the plaintiff/petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to get the lock put by the respondents dismantled through the process of court.”
7. The defendant did not comply with the direction. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks to have the order implemented through court. The contention of the petitioners is that the interim order of mandatory injunction needs to be enforced by the execution court in terms of Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the trial court could not have passed the impugned order which is in the nature of an order in an execution proceedings. I am unable to agree with the said contention. Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus:—
“36. Application to orders.- The provisions of this Code relating to the execution of decrees (including provisions relating to payment under a decree) shall, so far as they are applicable, be deemed to apply to the execution of orders (including payment under an order).
8. As to whether steps have to be taken in execution for implementation of an order essentially depends on the nature of the order passed. The trial court definitely retains its inherent power to see that its orders are obeyed. I do not think that in the instant case, the plaintiffs are to be driven to the process of execution of the order to see that the mandatory direction given to remove the lock affixed on the door is implemented. At any rate, Section 36 CPC along with the inherent power of the court gives due authority to the court to depute an Amin for enforcement of the order in question.
9. I do not find any merit in the original petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.