ORDER

1. Assailing the order dated 19.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.12933 of 2020, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

2. Vide order dated 16.9.2022, the writ appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, review petition was filed being Review Petition No.1147 of 2022. Vide order dated 10.11.2022, the review petition was allowed and the order dated 16.9.2022 in Writ Appeal No.1057 of 2022 was reviewed and recalled. The writ appeal was restored to file. Thereafter, the writ appeal was disposed off by a final order dated 30.1.2023. In view of the fact that certain important questions of law were not considered by this Court and since the judgment was not yet signed, the order dated 30.1.2023 was recalled. The matter was listed for reconsideration. Thereafter, the matter was heard on various dates.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that an application was filed under Order 39 rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the CPC”) before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jabalpur on the ground that the opposite party has violated the order of status quo. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies considered the application under Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC and held the accused guilty of the same. The matter was referred to the High Court. The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court on the administrative side passed an order on 9.11.2016 directing the Deputy Registrar to transmit the records of the case in a proper reference (memo) to the Registry of the High Court for taking appropriate action. Thereafter, the instant writ petition was filed. The instant writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the suit itself has been dismissed and as the order on the application under Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC was an interlocutory order, the same does not survive. Aggrieved by the same, a review petition was filed which was also rejected by order dated 28.7.2022. Hence, this appeal.

4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order came to the conclusion that when the main proceedings pending before the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative, Jabalpur were disposed off, the question of entertaining the violation of any interim order will not arise for consideration. Questioning the same, the instant appeal was filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the question of contempt will remain irrespective of the disposal of the proceedings. The contempt would arise in view of the fact that there was an interim order granted on 24.2.2003. That the petitioner had filed an application under section 67(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the CPC which was allowed by the Deputy Registrar. The status quo was ordered to be maintained by the respondents therein over the plot in dispute. The said order was not complied with. That in spite of the order directing status quo, the respondents therein continued the construction over the property in question. Therefore, an application was filed by the appellant under Order 39 rule 2A of the CPC alleging breach of injunction. The application was referred to the District Judge, who returned the matter to the Deputy Registrar for sending it to the High Court being a contempt matter. The matter was sent to the Principal Registrar of the High Court, who returned the file to the Government to submit a proper reference as contemplated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The matter was tried and by order dated 4.8.2016 the opposite party was found guilty of breach of injunction by the Deputy Registrar. The matter was resent to the Principal Registrar of the High Court, who again returned the matter to the Deputy Registrar for submission of a proper reference as per the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Thereafter, the appellant filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the Deputy Registrar to act in accordance with the letters issued by the High Court. The learned Single