Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) IN this contempt petition the prayer is not for violation of any order passed by the High Court but the submission of learned Counsel is that an injunction order of the Trial Court is being violated.
(2.) ACCORDING to Sri. Irshad Husain learned Counsel for the applicant the issue relates to holding of function of Moharram year to year. The applicant alleges to have filed a suit before the Trial Court which was ultimately decreed in his favour and an injunction order was granted to him. He states that the opposite party filed a First Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court which was dismissed and the opposite party then filed a Second Appeal No. 2066 of 1986 before this Court where initially an interim order was granted to the opposite party however, on the stay vacation application filed by the applicants herein the interim order was vacated on 13.11.1987 and as such there is no interim order operating in the second appeal and hence the injunction granted by the Trial Court in favour of the applicants relating to holding of Moharram function is still operative. Learned Counsel refers to various annexures of the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition to state that the parties filed Writ Petition No. 18047 of 1990 and obtained interim order in the writ petition for permission to hold the function of Moharram on year to year basis. According to him the holding of Moharram function on 14.12.2010 by the opposite parties was without any interim order passed in any writ petition and was therefore a violation of the injunction order passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the first appellate court in the suit of the applicant and the stay order granted in the second appeal of the opposite party was also not operative.
(3.) IT appears that the matter requires perusal of facts relating to the dispute between the parties which has started from the Trial Court and is at present pending in the second appeal No. 2066 of 1986.;