The merging of an interim order in the final order and decree of the suit may preclude the court from entertaining a contempt petition based on the non-compliance of the interim order.

1. This contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance of the prohibitory order dated 30-6-1997 passed on I.A. No. I in O.S. No. 78 of 1997 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilagi.

2. Neither the complainant nor his Counsel is present. On earlier occasion also the complainant was not present. As the facts culled out vide interim order dated 30-6-1997, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilagi in the Original Case No. 78 of 1997 directed as "you Opponent No. 5 is hereby restrained not to disburse the compensation amount to Opponent Nos. 1 to 4 in respect of land in Survey No. 18B/1 and 18B/2 of Kandagal Village to the extent of plaintiffs' alleged 1/3rd share till disposal of LA. No. I on merits". But the allegation is that the same has not been complied with. As per the averment, the endorsement of the process server shows that the said order was served on respondent 1 on 2-7-1997. It is also stated that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) decreed the suit on 15-1-1999, awarding 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. A final decree was also drawn on 17-3-1999. It revealed that as per the office objections, this contempt was filed on 29-11-1999 with an inordinate delay of 517 days. Two weeks time for compliance was granted on 16-12-1999 and further time of one week was granted on 20-1-2000 with a direction in case of default the petition shall stand dismissed. The petition was dismissed on 20-1-2000. It was further recalled vide order dated 26-5-2000 in C.P. No 780 of 2000. Notice was issued on 8-6-2000. Two weeks time was granted on 23-6-2000 to file application for condonation of delay. On 11-7-2000 notice regarding petition and limitation was issued. Later on 11-9-2000 I.A. No. I was dismissed as withdrawn. However, further orders were passed on 16-11-2000, 5-2-2001, 6-7-2001, 25-7-2001 and on 2-8-20011 On last date i.e., on 19-9-2001 the complainant was not present, respondents 2 to 5 were present, respondent 1 was also present, Counsel for respondent 6 had moved an application for not attending the Court on ground of heart problem, his attendance was exempted. Today as stated the learned Counsel for the complainant as well as the complainant is not present. We find no reason to adjourn the matter. As stated this contempt is against the interim order dated 30-6-1997.

3. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. Nothing has been shown when respondent 5 who was restrained as per the order was served at that point of time.

4. No doubt, if there is any violation of injunction or breach of the order one can approach the competent Court under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the CPC and the Court is competent to take action. Further, if any order is passed, there is a provision to file appeal against that order.

5. As stated in the instant case, the interim order merged in the final order, decreeing the suit in January 1999 and final decree has also been drawn on 17-3-1999. In view of this, it is not proper for this Court to go into the matter even though some orders have been passed by this Court. In any view of the matter, under the circumstances of the case no direction can be issued in this contempt petition. The parties are at liberty to agitate the issue and take appropriate action, if so advised in accordance with law.

6. This contempt petition is dismissed.

N.K. Jain, C.J. and N. Kumar, J.—The matter is before us under the caption 'for orders on being spoken to'. Learned Counsel submits that due to inadvertence the names of Sri Raghunath Manvi and Sri M.N. Seshadri, Government Advocates for respondent 1, Sri P.H. Gotkhindi, Advocate for respondents 3 to 5, Sri B. Veerappa, Advocate for respondent 2 and Sri M.R. Nanjunde Gowda, Advocate for respondent 6, have been left over in the order passed on 21-9-2001 and, therefore, necessary corrections may be made. On consideration, as other Advocates have not objected, their names may be read while maintaining th