1. This suo motu contempt petition was registered under the order passed by the learned Single Judge in RFA No. 4095/2013 on 07.12.2015 for the alleged disobedience of the status quo order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid RFA on 03.06.2013.

2. The aforesaid RFA No. 4095/2013 was filed by the plaintiff, Sadiq S/o Bashirahmad Hanchinmani against defendant No. 1, his own father Sri Bashirahmad Khatalsab Hanchinmani and defendant No. 2, Smt. Meena Madhukar Dongre for declaration and possession of the suit property, a shop in question, situated in Belgaum.

3. The said suit O.S. No. 43/2009, Sadiq vs. Bashirahmad came to be dismissed by the Trial Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum on 28.03.2013. Hence, the present RFA No. 4095/2013 was filed by him before this court in which the aforesaid status quo order came to be passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.06.2013.

4. By the order dated 07.12.2015, in R.F.A. No. 4095/2013, which is extracted in para No. 4 of the Memo of contempt petition is quoted below for ready reference:

“In this appeal an order was passed on 02.12.2015 directing the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, to seize the schedule property on or before 06.12.2015 and to surrender the key of the suit property before the Court. However, when this matter is called before this Court this day, learned Government Pleader would submit that the direction issued to the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, cannot be implemented inasmuch as the jurisdiction over Belagavi is with the Police Commissioner. Hence, the same is required to be modified. Accordingly, by modifying the aforesaid order, the Police Commissioner, Belagavi is directed to execute the said order today before 4.30 in the evening and to surrender the key before the court.

2. In the meanwhile, in response to the order dated 02.12.2015, learned counsel Sri. Sangarm S. Kulkarni, who was earlier appearing for second respondent and also the present counsel Sri. S.C. Bheemaraddi, have filed their affidavit. Same are taken on record.

3. In the affidavit by learned counsel Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni, he would submit that the second respondent sought his assistance in letting out the property in dispute during the pendency of the interim order for which he was not agreeable. Hence, the second respondent withdrew the vakalat that was given to him with his no objection to engage some other counsel to represent her interest. Accordingly, the counsel has returned his vakalat which he had filed earlier on behalf of the second respondent.

4. So far as the affidavit which is filed by learned counsel Sri. S.C. Bheemaraddi is concerned, who is appearing for second respondent with NOC from learned Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni. In his affidavit, he has given in detail the particulars as to how instructions were provided to him by the second respondent for preparation of objections to the application filed in I.A. No. 1/15.

5. On going through the affidavit, it is clearly seen that everything he has stated therein is not acceptable. There is an attempt to suppress his say in supporting the second respondent and her husband from trying to let out possession of property in dispute during the pendency of interim order granted by this Court. It is also seen that there is an attempt to tone down the magnitude of the offence committed by second respondent and her husband which has resulted in the appellant filing an application in I.A. No. 1/15. At this juncture, it is necessary to place on record that this Court has been observing that the litigants are taking the law into their hands by disobeying the orders of the Court. This is yet another matter of similar nature.

6. As stated earlier, this very Bench passed interim order initially on 03.06.2013 after being fully convinced that the possession of the property is not delivered in favour of the second respondent. The said position is not objected to by the learned counsel Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni when he entered a