A party cannot be punished for disobeying a court order that does not exist, and failure to seek a stay of an order during the pendency of a miscellaneous petition can impact the legal outcome.

( 1 ) IN this complaint [presented under sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of courts Act, the complainant has prayed for punishing the respondents for having deliberately and wilfully committed the contempt of the City Civil Court, bangalore, by disobeying its order dated 13-9-1982.

( 2 ) THE undisputed fact of thecase are these: A vacant land measuring 486 square yards belonging to the corporation of the City of Bangalore at briand Square,'mysore Road,bangalore city had been leased to the complainant for establishing a Petrol Bunk. On 28-2-1982 an order of eviction was passed by the Competent Officer acting under Section 4 of the Karnataka public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act directing the eviction of the complainant from the said premises. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant presented an appeal against that order under Section 10 of the said Act on 10-9-1982. On an application made in the said appeal, the Appellate Authority/city r. 45 civil Court made an order on 13-9- 1982 staying the order of eviction. On 23-2-1989 the appeal was dismissed for defaulr. On 28-2-1989 a miscellaneous application under Section 151 read with Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the appellate Authority praying for setting aside the order dated 23-2-1989 dismissing the appeal for default with a prayer for restoration of the appeal and to dispose of the same on merits. In the said miscellaneous application, the complainant presented I. A. No. 1 for staying the order dated 23-2 1989 dismissing the appeal for default. On the said application, the following order was made:"order of dismissal passed on 23-2-1989 in M. A. No. 35 of 1982 ;,is stayed until further orders. "the notice on the miscellaneous application was stated to have been served on the Commissioner on 7-8-1989 and the Counsel for the Corporation filed vakafath in the miscellaneous application on 1-9-1989. On 27-9-1989 objections were filed by the Corporation to the miscellaneous application. On 17-1 1990 the Corporation authorities executed the order dated 28-2-1982 made by the Competent Authority under the Act and took possession of the land. On 18-1 1990 the complainant filed an application for restoration of the possession of the land under Section 144 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure. On 19-1-1990 the City civil Court made an order permitting the complainant to enter upon the land. On 5-2-1990 on the application,i. A. No. IV filed by the complainant, the City civil Court directed the Corporation to put the complainant in possession of the property. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation preferred a revision Petition before this Court in c. R. P. No. 850 of 1990 and the civil revision petition was dismissed. Immediately thereafter, on 15-2-1990 the possession has been handed over to the complainant.

( 3 ) THE question, however, for consideration in this complaint is whetherthe respondents are liable to be punished for disobeying the order of the city Civil Court dated 13-9-1982.

( 4 ) AS stated earlier, the order ofeviction was made by the Competent officer on 28-2-1982. The execution of that order was stayed by the order dated 13-9-1982 made by the City civil Court on an Interlocutory application filed in Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 1982. If the said order can be regarded as having been in force, there can be no doubt that the action of the Corporation authorities executing the order dated 28-2-1982, on 17-1-1990 would amount to contempt of Court. But, there is no dispute that the appeal itself was dismissed for default on 23-2-1989 and Miscellaneous No. 172 of 1989 was made on 28-2-1989 praying for setting aside the order dismissing the Misc: Appeal No. 35 of 1982. The said miscellaneous application is still pending and the order dismissing the appeal for default has not been set aside so far.

( 5 ) IT is also not in dispute that noorder has been made in Misc. No. 172 of 1989 rest