- (1.) THIS intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2011 whereby a learned Single Judge considered the matter in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.28/2007 in relation to the order passed by the Court on 05.01.2007 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.421/2006. With reference to the subject matter of the litigation concerning the right of way, the learned Single Judge found the appellants having not complied with the order passed by the Court for maintaining status quo in letter and spirit, particularly after noticing that earlier, the way in dispute, as shown in the plan prepared by the Commissioner at points A to B, had been opened but was again blocked after the decision of the First Appellate Court.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge considered it appropriate to permit the petitioner (the respondent herein) to remove the obstruction from points A to B, if the contemnors were not doing so; and also ordered for providing of local police help in case of the contemnors causing any hindrance or obstruction. The learned Single Judge made it clear that such removal of obstructions will not prejudicially affect the merits of the contentions of the defendants in the pending second appeal and also did not consider it expedient to award any punishment against the contemnors at the given stage. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed and ordered as under:- "6. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents ­ contemnors ought to have followed and abided by the interim order of this Court in letter and spirit. The rights of the parties are yet to be determined by this Court in the aforesaid second appeal. The order dtd.5.1.2007 directing the status quo irrespective of the ownership right of the parties where the defendants claim ownership over the adjacent land clearly meant that status quo after removal of obstructions between point "A" to "B" in the map prepared by the Commissioner on 11.9.2009 under the orders of this Court was to be maintained. However, the photographs produced by the plaintiff-petitioner with his additional affidavit dtd.10.11.2011 shows otherwise. 7. In view of these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff-petitioner deserves to be permitted to remove the said obstruction from point "A" to "B" in the said map prepared by the Commissioner and as shown in the photographs Annex."A" and "B" with the said affidavit affidavit and Annex.3 produced with the contempt petition and he may do so at his own cost, if the respondents-contemnors are not removing the same. 8. If during the process of such removal by the plaintiff- petitioner, the respondents- contemnors causes any hindrances or obstructions, the local police is directed to provide necessary police aid to the petitioner in this regard. The respondents shall not cause any obstructions in such removal of obstructions between point "A" to "B" as aforesaid. Such removal of obstructions between point "A" to "B" however, will not prejudicially affect the merits of contentions of the defendants ­ respondents in the aforesaid second appeal. This Court also does not consider it expedient to award any punishment against the respondents ­ contemnors at this stage. 9. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Notices are discharged." In this appeal, on 20.07.2012, this Court posed the question to the learned counsel for the appellants as regards the current position of the way in question. Thereafter, the matter was considered on 14.08.2012 and notices were ordered to be issued and the operation of the impugned order was ordered to remain stayed. However, today a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent with the submissions, inter alia, that the compliance of the impugned order dated 16.11.2011 had already been carried out and the way was opened on 27.12.2011 with the help of police. A copy of the compliance report, as said to have been prepared by the SHO, Jaitaran has also been placed on record as Annex.X.
(3.) HAVING regard to the subject matter of the litigation and the nature of the orders passed, when compliance had been carried out on 27.12.2011 as per the documents placed on record and the way at the disputed place had been opened, in our view, this appeal could only be considered as infructuous and the matter does not appear calling for any adjudication herein.;