IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CIVIL CONTEMPT NO. 8 OF 2011 M/S Tarai Foam Pvt. Ltd. and another. ……Petitioners. Versus Sri V.B.R.C. Purshottam and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Sundar Singh Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Sundar Singh Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners have filed this contempt petition stating that the interim order granted by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23.12.2010 in Writ Petition No. 2044 of 2010 (MS) has been violated. The interim order passed by the Court, which is alleged to have been violated by the respondents reads as follows:- “Heard Mrs. Krishi Shukla Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent no. 4 on stay application. This court has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- in two instalments. In compliance of the interim order the petitioner has deposited Rs. 15,00,000/-. Prior to deposit of said amount, land of the petitioner was attached by Tehsildar. Therefore, the attachment order passed by Tehsildar Kichha, in the matter, shall not be given effect to, till further orders of this Court.” 2 3. Admittedly, the petitioners have deposited ` 15,00,000/- in terms of the direction of this Court. However, since prior to deposit of the said amount by the petitioners, Tehsildar had already attached the land of the petitioners, it was directed that the order of attachment shall not be given effect to, which only means that no further proceeding consequent to the attachment will take place. It does not mean that the attachment order itself will go away. This contempt petition is, therefore, wholly frivolous and deserves to be dismissed. 4. The instant contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 5.1.2011 Rathour