THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CONTEMPT CASE No.1454 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of respondents 2 and 3 in complying with the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 24248 of 2008 in W.P. No. 18637 of 2008, whereby this Court ordered status quo obtaining as on that date to be maintained until further orders. The petitioners contending that they, being the legal heirs of one Saga Venkateswara Rao, who was the cultivating tenant of the land admeasuring Ac. 14.01 cents in Sy. No. 405 situated at Atchythapura Trayam Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, are continuing in possession of the said land after the death of said Saga Venkateswara Rao, having inherited the right of tenancy from him, and the respondent authorities were trying to evict them from the said land, filed the aforesaid writ petition and obtained interim order of status quo, dated 20.10.2008. While so, complaining that in spite of status quo orders passed by this Court, respondents 2 and 3 are obstructing them from entering into the subject land and carrying out agricultural operations, the petitioners filed the present contempt case. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit, denying the allegations made by the petitioners, and he has taken a stand that the said Saga Venkateswara Rao never cultivated the land in question and that possession of the land in question was taken over by the Tahsildar, Pedapudi, on 16.02.2008 itself i.e. even prior to passing of interim orders of status quo by this Court, and thus the land was in possession of the government as on the date of said interim orders. In view of the rival stand taken by the parties as regards possession of the land in question, without going into the merits of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate if the main writ petition is heard and disposed of and the petitioners are at liberty to agitate all the issues in the writ petition. The contempt case is accordingly closed. Parties are at liberty to make a mention for hearing of the writ petition, before the appropriate Court. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 21st January, 2011 IBL A perusal of the impugned order would make it clear that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for granting the ex parte interim injunction. It does not disclose as to whether the mandatory provisions contained in Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC are considered before passing the same. Since the impugned order is passed without assigning any reasons and without issuing any notice to the opposite party, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.