SATISH CHANDRA,J. - (1.) SRI Ratnesh Chandra holding brief of Sri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 18.10.2011, this Court has passed an interim order where the passage was given to the petitioners to assess their plots, the same has not been given by the opposite party, so contempt has been made out.
(2.) HE further submits that the order dated 19.09.2009 has been modified by the higher forum. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submits that the order dated 18.10.2011 has been merged with the final order dated 01.03.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5961 (M/S) of 2011, where the certain directions were given. The operative portion of the aforesaid order, on reproduction, reads as under: "In view of the abovesaid facts, without entering into the factual controversy involved in the present case, as learned counsel for parties have agreed in the matter in question, the present writ petition is disposed in the following terms: - (a) The trial court/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Unnao shall decide the suit for perma ­nent injunction (Regular Suit NO. 152 of 2009) on or before 31.05.2012 posi ­tively and for the said purpose, he is free to fix the date as per his own Board/cause list and further the trial court shall not grant unnecessary ad ­journment in the matter in question to the parties. (b) The parties are directed to maintain status in respect to the property in dispute as per order dated 19.09.2009 passed by the trial court/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Unnao on an application moved by plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC subject to any variance/modification made in this regard by the appellate authority in the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. or by the Higher forum. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of."
(3.) HE further submits that vide order dated 19.09.2009 passed by the trial court under Order 39, Rule 1, CPC, it was provided that the petitioners will not interfere in the peaceful possession of the owner of the plots. After hearing both the parties, it appears that the controversy is a disputed question of facts. Parties shall at liberty to seek remedy at the appropriate forum, if advise so. Further, this Court has already directed the lower court to finally decide the Regular Suit No. 152 of 2009 on or before 31.05.2012. Presently, no case of contempt has been made out.;