Wilful and deliberate violation of a court order constitutes contempt of court and will be punished accordingly.

Having heard the respective contentions of the parties this Court is satisfied that there has been deliberate violation of its order passed on 23rd June, 1983 which order is more specifically set out in para 18 of the petition for contempt. The relevant part of the said order reads :

"So far as new construction is concerned there will be status quo as of today. The proposed, construction will not be let out in the meantime."

2. The service of the said order on the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is admitted. It is also admitted that the respondent No. 3 is the husband of respondent No. 2. From the pleadings it appears that the case of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been that there has been no violation of the Court's order inasmuch as all works to the building had been completed prior to the application initiated by the petitioner and on which application the said order referred to was passed. The second defence of the respondents from the pleadings appears to be that the report of Mr. Utpal Roy who was appointed Special Officer to visit the premises to ascertain if any violation of the order dated 23rd June, 1983 had taken place, is a false and fraudulent document inasmuch as the Special Officer did not inspect the building in question on the 5th July, 1983 on which date the report was made. The case of the respondents has been that the report was false, fabricated and manufactured document obtained under the direct influence of the petitioner and as such the basis of the report of Sri Utpal Roy dated 5th July, 1983 was denied and in fact an application taken out for the report to be set aside. What is significant to note is that under orders of the Court the Special Officer was directed to visit the premises once again, to take possession of the building materials lying at the site, and to store the same. Pursuant to this order passed, on 23rd July, 1983 the Special Officer revisited the premises on 29th July, 1983 and found that construction works had been continued even after his last visit to the premises on the 5th July, 1983 and all plastering works on the 3rd floor were made complete and a new wall constructed on both sides of the staircase of the roof. In the first report of the Special Officer the Special Officer had noted that stocks of stone chips were placed on the roof and that sand and cement was stacked on the third floor wherein construction works were being carried out by one raj-mistry named Sudarshan who was assisted by one majdoor named Rati. He also noted that some other persons were working within the room on the third floor. The report of the Special Officer categorically states that he had found plastering with sand and cement going on at the time of his visit by the raj-mistry with the help of the majdoor and he recorded that the mixture of sand and cement with water was found at the landing of the third floor, all of which facts established beyond doubt that works were being carried on at the suit premises altering the status quo directed contrary to the order of this Court. I do not accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents who inter alia contended that the order of 23rd June, 1983 which is alleged to be violated did not prevent plastering works from being carried on the third floor and merely prohibited constructions being made thereat. The decision cited by him namely AIR 1962 Punj 204 is of no assistance as that was a case where the interpretation of the word 'building' and 're-building' was considered in the light of the scheme of the Punjab Rent Legislation nor is the decision reported in AIR 1958 Cal 474 : (1958 Cri LJ 1162), Dulal Chandra v. V. Sukumar also of any assistance. It cannot be contended that the order passed, by this Court on the 23rd June, 1983, is an order of a contingent character which could not be adhered to nor (was it) submitted, that the order is not clear and/or specific. In any event it is not the case of the respondents that they did not und