The court has the power to order the restoration of status quo ante in contempt proceedings.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.

( 2 ) IT appears in a suit for specific performance of contract, appeal came before this Court. A learned single Judge granted an order of temporary injunction putting the owner of the property to the condition that he would not make any construction upon the disputed land. Alleging, however, that the said order was violated by the owner of the property, the appellants herein, filed a petition to take action for the alleged wilful disobedience of the Court s order was filed. The learned single Judge issued and interim direction in the contempt proceeding on 26-9-1995 to the following effect :"however, in order to dispose of this Contempt Case without further enquiry into the extent of the suit property, it is assumed that the Masjid portion is outside the suit property inasmuch as the area of the rest of the property is more that 3000 sq. yds. which is the area agreed to be transferred to the petitioner by the respondents in respect of which suit for specific performance is being agitated. According to the respondents the permanent construction was carried on only in the Masjid area outside the suit property and, therefore, the respondents have not committed any contempt. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the counter affidavit itself it is admitted that temporary structures have been put upon on the suit land outside the Masjid area which constitutes the violation of the direction not to alter the nature of the property. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that these temporary structures have been made only to facilitate the running of a school of a neighbour for lack of space and since they are only improvised sheds they can be removed at any time and an undertaking to that effect has also been filed and according that undertaking, the contempt case be closed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the Contempt Case is closed according the undertaking of the respondents, it would be granting a premium on violation of the order of this Court. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the improvised structures alter the nature of the suit property and constitutes violation of the direction of this Court. The respondents must, therefore, purge themselves of the contempt by making restitution before seeking any lenient treatment. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the improvised structures will be removed immediately. I grant three weeks time for making the restitution and reporting compliance. "

( 3 ) THE containers, it seems, reported compliance of the direction of the learned single Judge, but the petitioner contested the said claim. The learned single Judge has upon the same passed the impugned order, dated 1-12-1995, which is to the following effect :"the bone of contention between the parties is whether my order, dated 26-9-1995, has been complied with or not. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that it has been complied with by removing all the temporary structures except two small sheds meant for security guards. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire land should be kept vacant, and nothing should remain on the ground. Since both sides are not agreeing on the actual situation, I deem it fit to direct the learned II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, to inspect the property and if the order is not so far complied with, to see that it is complied with under his supervision within a period of four weeks. "

( 4 ) TWO contentions have been raised before us in the appeal against the said order : (1) that learned single Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction in making the impugned order; and (2) that in any case the two temporary Structure referred to in the impugned order were in existence from before and they are meant only for temporary user by a guard to see that the vast extent of vacant land is not grabbed by land grabbers.

( 5 )