This Contempt Appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of the Courts Act has been filed against the order dated 06.05.2013.

The facts relevant for the instant appeal are as follows:

Plot number F-15 (40), Shastri Nagar, Meerut was allotted to one P.S. Mahesh by the U.P. Avas Evan Vikas Praishad. The original allottee applied for and obtained sanction of map no:229 dated 28.04.2012 from the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Meerut for raising a residential house over the aforesaid plot. On an inspection, it was discovered that the constructions on the spot were not being raised in accordance with the sanctioned plan. A show cause notice was therefore issued on 28.07.2012 to the recorded owner to show cause why the unauthorised constructions be not demolished. Since none appeared on the date fixed in pursuance of the notice aforesaid, an order for the demolition of the unauthorised constructions was passed by the Competent Authority on 8.8.2012.

After the order of the demolition was passed, two representations were made by the appellant. The first on 14.08.2012 wherein it was admitted that the constructions being raised on the spot were at variance with the sanctioned plan while by the second representation dated 28.05.2012 it was intimated that the appellant had purchased the plot in question from the original allottee, P.S. Mahesh.

The appellant challenged the demolition order by means of a Writ Petition No. 5391 of 2012, wherein a Division Bench on 10.10.2012, passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards the constructions in question.

The Executive Engineer, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Meerut filed a Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1456 of 2013 alleging therein that the order of status quo was being violated by the appellant and he was continuing with the constructions. Photographs of the constructions made in defiance of the order of status quo, snapped in November, 2012 were annexed along with the contempt application. It was further stated that a notice dated 13.12.2012 was issued to the appellant, calling upon him to stop the construction work being carried out in defiance of the interim order dated 10.10.2012. In response to this notice, Tarun Kumar Agrawal submitted a reply that he was only getting the finishing work done, that no work was being done as far as the disputed construction was concerned and that he had not been restrained from continuing the work in the rest of the house apart from the disputed constructions.

The Contempt application aforesaid was entertained and notices were issued to the opposite party in the contempt petition (appellant herein) by this Court fixing, 06.05.2013.

On the date fixed, a counter affidavit filed by Sri Tarun Kumar Agarwal was taken on record and the order impugned was passed.

We have heard Sri Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.

The stamp reporter has reported that the instant appeal is not maintainable.

A perusal of the order impugned shows that it grants time to the counsel for filing a rejoinder affidavit in response to the counter affidavit filed by the contemnor and further directions contained in the said order have been issued only to ensure compliance of the order of status quo passed by the writ court on 10.10.2012. No order of punishment has been passed.

We have also perused the counter affidavit filed by the appellant in the contempt petition as also the affidavit in support of the stay application in this appeal wherein the appellant has admitted that construction work was being carried out by him. However, the entire thrust of the averments is to justify the construction work being carried out. The object of invoking the appellate jurisdiction appears to be to obtain some order or observation, interpreting the order, contempt whereof is alleged, which would absolve the appellant of the contempt notice even before the contempt Court has applied its mind to the decide the matter finally. This