1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4977 of 2006. Smt. Rashami daughter of Shri Bhagwan Swaroop & Another VERSUS Vishal Tiwari son of Shri Mahendra Prasad Tiwari Date of Order :::: 20/08/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. J.P. Goyal, Counsel for the Petitioners. None present for the Respondent Per Court : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite service, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur in civil miscellaneous appeal No.30/2005 setting aside the order dated 14.07.2005 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, C.P.C. filed by the respondent for the alleged breach of the order of injunction. 2 The learned trial Court in the order dated 14.07.2005 took a note of the fact that the suit filed by the respondent, herein itself has been dismissed and the order of temporary injunction, which was to last during the pendency of the suit having itself come to an end nothing survived in the matter with regard to the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A, C.P.C. and, therefore, dismissed the application. Not satisfied with the above, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court and the learned Lower Appellate Court by the impugned order dated 08.03.2006 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the learned trial Court to decide the same after recording the evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C. Page 4277 (Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others), wherein the Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the contempt of the interim order passed by the Court and non-compliance having been reported with thereof, where the interim order is vacated subsequently or because the main relief cannot be granted in the proceedings, as in the present case, where the suit itself has been dismissed, the other side cannot be permitted to allege disobedience of such interim order. 3 I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon. In Para 9 of the above cited judgment, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court having considered the facts and circumstances of the said case, held as follows :- “In a given case, even if ultimately the interim order is vacated or relief in the main proceeding is not granted to a party, the other side cannot take that as a ground for dis-obedience of any interim order passed by the Court.” Taking the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court into account, I am of the view that once the main suit filed by the respondents had been dismissed the mere fact with regard to disobedience of the interim order itself could not be relied upon by the respondent to complain with the contempt on account of disobedience of the order of temporary injunction, which was last during the pendency of the suit after the suit itself stood dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am incliend to accept this this writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 08.03.2006, as more over contempt is a matter between the Court and the contemnor, who only has a right to report the matter regarding the alleged contempt to the 4 Court and nothing more. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. (Dalip Singh) J. ashok/