IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 47 of 2008 Rao Irfan S/o Sri Abdul Hamid Malik, Irfan and Company Piran Kaliyar, Dargah Sabir Pak, Mauza, Pargana, Roorkee, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. ....Petitioner Vs 1. Furkan, Manager, Dargah Management, Piran Kaliyar, R/o Dargah Piran Kaliyar Sharif, Tehsil and Pargana Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Kuttubudin, Chief Officer, Uttarakhand Waqf Board, 69/4 Teg Bahadur Road, Dehradun. ...Respondents Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the petitioner.S Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard. By means of this contempt petition, the petitioner has prayed to punish the respondents for flouting the order dated 7.2.2008 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 10 of 2008 Dargarh Management Vs. Rao Irfan and others whereby the interim order was clarified by the revisional court that “Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is clarified that the interim order, passed by the Waqf Tribunal/ District Judge, Haridwar in Case No.7 of 2007 on 17-1-2008, shall automatically stand vacated on 31-3-2008 when the period of contract of respondent No. 1 gets expired.” The revisional Court restricted the time of interim order till 31-3-2008 when the period of contract is to be expired. According to the petitioner, the respondents had not complying the court order passed by the Waqf Tribunal/ District Judge, Haridwar passed in Suit No.7 of 2007 Rao Irfan Vs. Dargah Management and others, on the application made under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. The order passed by the District Judge is interim in nature. This order was passed by the District Judge only to the contract period. Hence, the order passed by this Court in which period was mentioned till 31-3-2008, while the District Judge did not disclose the date. According to the simplicitor, the period of interim order shall continue till expiry of contract period. There is no dispute to this fact that the contract is expiring on 31-3-2008, the interim order was came to an end automatically on 31-3-2008. Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. provides that: - Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction: - (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term no exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. The petitioner had an alternate remedy to file the contempt petition before the Tribunal as has been provided under Order 39 Rule 2A of C.P.C. The petitioner may file application before the Tribunal concerned, if so advised. With the said observation, the contempt petition is dismissed in limine. All applications stands disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma, J.) Dated: - 19-3-2008 M.K.