ORDER :

Sudesh Bansal, J. - Heard learned senior counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

2. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.133/2017 was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 15.09.2022, taking note of the fact that original contempt petition pending before the trial court was abated. An application No.172/2022 has been filed stating inter alia that as a matter of fact the original contempt petition was abated in respect of S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.56/2017 and therefore, by recalling order dated 15.09.2022, revision Petition No.56/2017 titled Santosh Kumar Sharma v. Bhagwati Singh be dismissed as withdrawn and the S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.133/2017 be decided on merits.

3. Taking into consideration the contentions made hereinabove, with the consent of counsel for petitioner & without recalling the order dated 15.09.2022, the revision petition No.133/2017 has been heard on merits.

4. It appears that respondent Smt. Shakuntala Singh had instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner Santosh Kumar Sharma along with application for temporary injunction. In the application for temporary injunction, filed under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC, interim stay orders dated 15.04.2005/19.05.2005 were passed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, respondent-plaintiff filed one application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC on 04.05.2005 alleging inter alia that interim stay orders dated 15.04.2005 and 19.05.2005 have been flouted and therefore, the anti status quo position as delineated in the report of Court Commissioner dated 15.04.2005 be restored as well as petitioner be suitably punished for disobedience of the interim stay order. The application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC is pending and yet to be decided finally on merits.

5. It appears that during pendency of application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC, application for temporary injunction was decided vide order dated 22.01.2007, thereafter, the original suit No.193/2009 itself was decreed vide judgment dated 03.08.2010. It has been informed that petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 by way of filing civil regular first appeal No.377/2010 before the High Court which is yet pending.

6. Since the application filed by respondent under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC for disobedience of the interim stay order dated 15.04.2005 remained pending, though the original suit was finally decided by judgment dated 3.8.2010, therefore, petitioner moved application to dispose of the contempt petition filed under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC as having become infructuous, in view of deciding the suit finally. It was urged by the petitioner that the interim stay order dated 15.4.2005 for which disobedience was alleged, has merged in the final decree dated 3.8.2010, hence the contempt petition be disposed of. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kanwar Singh Saini v. Delhi High Court [(2011) 4 CCC 294 (SC)]. Learned trial court dismissed this application vide order dated 01.04.2017 where against petitioner filed the revision petition No.133/2017.

7. This Court finds that the contempt petition filed under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC alleging disobedience of the interim stay orders dated 15.4.2005/19.05.2005 is required to be decided on merits and the trial court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in not disposing of the contempt petition as having become infructuous merely on account of deciding the suit finally. It is not in dispute that the civil suit for permanent injunction has been decreed in favour of respondent vide judgment dated 3.8.2010 and in the contempt petition respondent has alleged disobedie