ORDER :

DEEPAK KHOT, J.

The applicants have filed this application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for punishing the non-applicants for breach of the order dated 16.04.2012 confirmed by order dated 12.03.2014 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 140/2012.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the original applicant/sole appellant-Santosh Kumar instituted a suit against the non-applicants seeking relief of declaration of title and partition. The respondents contested the suit by filing the written statement.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the learned court below vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011 dismissed the claim of the applicants/plaintiffs holding that the applicants/plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2011, the applicants have filed First Appeal No. 140/2012 alongwith an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code.

4. The said first appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 16.04.2012. After hearing both the parties, this Court vide order dated 16.04.2012 (Annexure A/2) directed the parties that till the next date of hearing, parties to the appeal will maintain status quo with respect to the suit property. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure A/3), the order maintaining status quo was made absolute.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the order granting status quo has been passed in presence of both the parties, hence the respondents are well aware of the same and they are obliged to ensure compliance of the order passed by this Court.

6. It is submitted that despite of the order of maintaining status quo, the non-applicants have raised construction over the suit property, as they have built a shop over the suit property and are continuing to expand their constructions, which is evident from the photographs clicked on 01.12.2021 (Annexure A/4). It is submitted that the applicants have also filed photos of the suit property before raising the construction vide Annexure A/6. It is submitted that the applicants have also made a complaint to the Chief Municipal Officer, Bina vide Annexure A/5. Thus, prayed that the said act of the applicant is a clear violation/breach of the order passed by this Court on 16.04.2012 and therefore, the non-applicants may be suitably punished.

7. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that he has filed reply to the application denying the averments made in the application. He has submitted that the applicants have not violated the order of maintaining status quo granted by this Court in respect of the suit property. It is submitted that the non-applicants have not been prohibited or restrained by any order of this Court from using and enjoying the suit property. The applicants taking shelter of the order of status quo are trying to deprive the non-applicants from using the suit property. The respondents are owners in possession of the suit property and consequently, they are enjoying the suit property.

8 . It is submitted that the applicants are making false complaint against the non-applicants. The suit property, in respect of which the status quo order has been passed by this Court, still exists and the respondents have not transferred the said property to anybody or created any third party interest over the suit property. It is further submitted that the applicants have not filed any documents in respect of the actual physical condition of the suit property at the time of passing status quo order by this Court.

9. It is submitted that the applicants have not specifically stated in the application as to on which land the construction has been carried out by the non-applicants. It is submitted that although the applicants have made the alleged complaint to the CMO, Bina, but when no action has been taken on the said complaint, they should have approached