- (1.)This contempt application has been taken out alleging wilful, deliberate and contumacious disobedience to the order dated 3rd July, 2002 and as clarified on 12th July, 2002. This order was passed in a partition suit filed by the petitioner in the capacity of the plaintiff against the group of Haques, one M/s. Orient Beverages Ltd. and M/s. Subir Udyog Ltd., on an interlocutory application taken out by the petitioner. By the order dated 3rd July, 2002 Auto Distributors Limited being the respondent No. 1 herein was served with the copy of the Notice of Motion as well as the copy of the said petition of interlocutory application. The Auto Distributor was not a party to the suit and further interim relief was sought for to affect right, title and interest of M/s. Auto Distributor Ltd. Considering urgency of the matter I passed an ad interim order as follows :-
Therefore, there will be an order of status quo as regard possession and occupation of lot B. This order of status quo was passed in view of the allegation that the said Auto Distributors and/or the defendant No. 11, the suit was attempting to transfer and/or sub-let and/or part with possession of some portion of lot B in favour of third party. By this order I clarified that whosoever was in possession and occupation will remain so. To ascertain who were in possession and occupation on that date, I appointed Special Officer.

(2.)On returnable date the Auto Distributors namely respondent No. 1 herein appeared and sought direction for filing affidavit-in-opposition. The earlier order dated 3rd July, 2002 was clarified again to the extent that M/s Auto Distributors and/or any other persons who are in occupation may carry on the repair and renovation works strictly in accordance with law. However, they are not permitted in the name of repair and renovation works to change materially and constructionally the building itself. This repair and renovation work will not create any equity in favour of M/s. Auto Distributors or any other person.
(3.)The Special Officer submitted report recording the position as regard possession and occupation on the date of his visit. On the aforesaid background and facts and circumstances of this case the present application has been taken out, alleging that in breach of the aforesaid orders the nature of possession and occupation of the show-room in question has been changed, as the respondents have opened and/or caused and/or allowed to open and run a business by the name of "Photopark" for computerized photo film processing and digital printing under the name and style of "Photopark" from a part of the said show-room.
;