S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THESE three contempt petitions at the instance of the parties hereto have been filed for alleged violation of this Court's judgment and order dated 19. 9. 2005 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5807 of 2005.

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The parties are related. Sushila Raje Holkar, the applicant in Contempt Petition Nos. 6 of 2006 and 36 of 2006 allegedly executed an agreement of lease in favour of Col. Anil kak (Retired), the alleged contemnor and applicant in Contempt Petition No. 27 of 2007 on or about 11. 8. 1998 in respect of 4. 8 acres of land appertaining to Khasra No. 60. A registered deed of lease was executed by her in favour of the respondent for 16,000 square feet out of the aforementioned 4. 8 acres of land.

( 3 ) DISPUTES and differences arose between the parties. No registered deed of lease was executed for the remaining land admeasuring 1,21,721. 6 square feet which is in possession of the respondent. Inter alia, for enforcing the said purported agreement of lease dated 11. 8. 1998, a suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent which is said to be pending in the Court of XXI, Additional District Judge, Indore. Applicant also filed a suit which was marked as Civil Original Suit No. 45/01a for eviction and arrears of rent against the respondent in respect of said 1,21,721,6 square feet of land. Allegedly, the agreed rent in respect of the said land was rs. 50,000/- per month. In addition to the said agreed rent, the respondent was required to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for the land measuring 16,000 square feet in terms of the said registered deed of lease. A suit for injunction was also filed by the respondent against the petitioner for a decree for injunction restraining her from interfering with the possession of the land held by the applicant and not to demolish or take any steps for the removal of the construction. Another suit appears to have been filed by the petitioner against the respondent being Civil Original Suit No. MJC/201/2001. In the suit filed by the applicant for eviction of the respondent, viz. , Civil Original suit No. 45/01a, upon failure on the part of the respondent to deposit the stipulated monthly rent, his defence has been directed to be struck off. A decree has been passed therein. The appeal preferred by the respondent thereagainst has also been dismissed. It is stated at the Bar that a second appeal is pending before the High Court.

( 4 ) THE learned IX Civil Judge, Class I, Indore in the said Civil Original suit No. 171a/2001 by an order dated 17/10/2001 granted an order of injunction with respect to the construction raised, but the said order of injunction was confined to 16,000 square feet of land alone. By the said order, the respondent was also restrained from raising any construction on the land except those which had been raised on the 16,000 square feet land. However, on an appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent, the learned additional District Judge by his order dated 21/3/2002 modified the said order of injunction dated 17/10/2001 directing that the said order should be made operative in respect of the entire suit land and structures standing thereupon.

( 5 ) THE High Court, however, by reason of its judgment and order dated 3. 7. 2003 set aside the order of the First Appellate Court and restored the one passed by the trial court. A Special Leave Petition was filed thereagainst by the respondent. Leave was granted. This Court by a judgment and order dated 19. 9. 2005 upon consideration of the entire matter and in particular the fact that the respondent had been running a school directed as under:

"we feel that it would be appropriate to continue the order of this Court dated 12/7/2003 and to keep it operative till the disposal of the suit, with a direction to the trial court to try and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the production before it of a copy of