S.NARAYAN, J. - (1.) This is an application by the plaintiff/appellant in F.M.A. No. 773 of 1996 for initiating a contempt proceeding against the defendants-respondents so as to punish and/or suitably deal with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with reference to an Order dated June 4, 1996 passed by this Bench in the abovementioned appeal. In response to a show cause notice, issued on this application, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have affirmed their respective affidavit-in-opposition to which there was affidavits-in-reply also furnished on behalf of the petitioner.
(2.) As alleged in the application, the Respondents/Contemners have wilfully, deliberately and contumaciously violated the order dated June 4, 1996, whereby the parties in the appeal were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the suit premises being portion of the premises No. 7, St. George's Gate Road, Calcutta more fully described in the schedule of the plaint in the suit touching the masonry boundary wall thereon. The suit in question being Tile Suit No. 920 of 1996 pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, their men, servants, agents or assigns from carrying on any unauthorised construction, additions or alterations of a permanent nature in the suit premises as also from committing the acts of waste and nuisance in the suit premises.
(3.) The petitioner-Company, being the plaintiff in the suit had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction and also for an ad interim order but the Court below refused the prayer and, accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered first as F.M.A.T. No. 1112 of 1996 and, subsequently, as F.M.A. No. 773 of 1996. While admitting the appeal by the Order dated April 18, 1996 this Bench had given direction to maintain status quo for a period of 10 days and, subsequently, by the Order dated June 4, 1996 (said to have been violated) there was again an order directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property pending the disposal of the suit before the Trial Court. It may be added here that the order of the status quo was passed with the object that fresh and new construction will not be made to change the nature and use of the property which exists from before. It was further clarified in the order itself that the defendants/respondents (the alleged contemners) were free to maintain the garden and also to replacement of bulbs of electric fault or any miscellaneous nature of thing which did not amount to a construction or change the nature of the property in dispute.;