Hon’ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.

2. This petition challenges the order of the appellate Court dated 19.4.2006 whereby the petitioner’s adjournment application has been allowed and a date for hearing of appeal as well as the application of the petitioner has been fixed.

3. Learned Counsel contends that the temporary injunction order was passed in appeal directing the respondents to maintain status-quo on the disputed property. In gross violation of the said order, the respondents defendants have commenced construction in the suit land and have also demolished certain construction of the petitioner-appellant. Therefore, an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, C.P.C. for charging and punishing the respondents for violation of the order was given before the appellate Court, which is still pending. This application should be decided before the appeal is disposed of because after the decision of the appeal the Court would become functus officio for disposal of the said application given under Order 39 Rule 2-A, C.P.C. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case law of Ram Shanker and others v. Suraj Prasad and others, 1962 A.L.J. 201 and ha