R. L. GUPTA, J ( 1 ) THIS petition has been moved under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the plaintiff/petitioner against the respondents. Petitioner is one of the sons of Late Shri Maninder Singh ( sms for short) who was brother of late Kanwal Mohinder Pal Singh ( kmps for short) husband of Smt^rarijit Kaur, respondent and father of Km. Kavita Singh, respondent 2. For the appreciation of the contempt petition it would be necessary to note in brief the allegations made in the plaint as well as in IA No. 4224189 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner because the contempt is alleged to have arisen on account violation of an order of the Court by the respondents passed in IA No. 4224189. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF and defendant 7 are the sons of late SMS while defendent 6 is his wife. Defendant I who is the wife of Late KMPS, whereas defendants 2 to 5 are the daughters of defendant 1 and KMPS. Defendants 8 and 9 are the daughters of late Sir Datar Singh ( sds for short), who was the grand-father of the plaintiff and father-in-law of defendant 1. Defendant 10 is the daughter of defendant 9, while defendants 11 and 12 are the sisters of the plaintiff. ( 3 ) THE suit is basically for partition of the individual properties of late SDS as set out in Schedule I and Annexure b and joint Hindu Family properties as set out in Schedule II and Annexure c . There is also a prayer for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 9-9-63 of the Sub Judge and orders dated 29-4-75 and 28-5-75 passed by the Revenue Assistant partitioning the agricultural land situated at Village Punjab Khore detailed in Schedule I, are without jurisdiction, fraudulent, illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. It is admitted in para 8 of the plaint that late SMS, father of the plaintiff had alsp instituted S. No. 63175 for partition of various properties and the same is still pending decision in this Court. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid suit the plaintiff filed IA No. 4224189 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( code for short ). ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid suit the plaintiff filed IA No. 4224189 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( code for short ). Since the contempt application stems from the aforesaid application, it will be necessary to give detailed facts as given in this appication. It is stated in this application that the plaintiff had filed the accompanying suit for partition of immovable properties, rendition of accounts as also for declaration. Late SDS was a rich ZAMINDAR owning considerable properties in Montgomery District, Pakistan. He exchanged his agricultural land. with. the land situated at Village Punjab Khore belonging to Sir Liyaqat Ali Khan, Who later on became the Prime Minister of Pakistan. It is further alleged that SDS got immove able properties against adjustment of his claims in resect of the properties left by him in Pakistan. He also purchased other properties from his own resources. SMS was born spastic and was unable to look after his own interest. During thre fife lime of SDS, the younger son KMPS had taken over the management of both the joint family properties as also his individedual properties. SDS died on 17-5-1973. After his death due to mental handicap of SMS, KMPS became exclusive Manager of all the properties and he took them under his complete control and management. ( 5 ) PLAINTIFF was also born a spastic. He suffers from various deformities and can neither write nor speak well. He cannot even walk properly. The defendants, in particular defendants I to 5. taking advantage of his illness are aleged to have started to negotiate for sale or otherwise, dispose of the joint family properties as also the individual properties of late SDS. The plaintiff claims to have a share in all the properties set out is Schedule 11 of the plaint as a membe. i of the Hindu Undivided Family ( huf for short) and also a share in the individual propertie s of SDS detailed in Schedule 1. ( 6 ) IT is then alleged that in case the defendants succeed in any manner, in selling, alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the properties set out in Schedules I and II, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated with costs. ( 6 ) IT is then alleged that in case the defendants succeed in any manner, in selling, alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the properties set out in Schedules I and II, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated with costs. He has a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and. therefore, sought a restraint order against the defendants against their selling, alienating, encumbering or in any manner parting with possession of the aforesaid properties till the disposal of the suit. He also prayed that an ex parte order in terms of the. prayer stated above may be passed. ( 7 ) THE application along with the suit was listed for hearing before this Court on 26th May, 1989. The Court issued notice to the defendants and also ordered that till further orders status quo regarding properties mentioned in Schedules I and II be maintained. ( 8 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 5 have filed their written statement. They have also contested the interim application by filing a reply. It is interesting to note that none of the other defendants have contested this application. Obviously the interest of the plaintiff, defendants 6, 7, II and 12 is absolutely common, because they are all the legal heirs of late SMS. Even the other defendants have not filed any reply to this application. So mainly the tussle is between plaintiff, defendants 6 to 12 on one hand and defendants I to 5 on the other. ( 9 ) THE facts stated in the contempt petition may now be noticed. It is alleged that the plaintiff along with the suit filed the above referred application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code bearing IA No. 4224189. The Court directed that till further orders status quo regarding properties in Schedules I and II be maintained and also ordered the issuance of notice to the respondents who were duly served hi the suit and entered appearance on 8-9-1989 and took time to file. the written statement. In Schedule II at serial numbers 3 and 4, the properties bearing No. 15, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi and House at B-68, Greater Kailash Part 1, (GK for short) were mentioned. the written statement. In Schedule II at serial numbers 3 and 4, the properties bearing No. 15, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi and House at B-68, Greater Kailash Part 1, (GK for short) were mentioned. Thus, in terms of the order dated 26-5-1989, status quo was required to be maintained in respect of these two properties also. Possession of the 68 GK property is with defedant/respondent I while the property at New Rohtak Road is in the joint possession of defendants 1to 5the GK property at the moment stands in the same of defendant 1 and is in her possession and control. On his visit to Delhi in January, 1990, the plaintiff found to his surprise that defendants I to 5 were trying to take advantage of the fact that he is a handicapped person, being born spastic, suffering from various deformities, and negotiating for sale and disposel of the joint family properties as also the individual properties of late lady and SDS. Defendants I to 5 had been contacting various brokers for the sale of various portions of the GK property so as to deprive him of his share in the ancestral and joint properties. The defendants had also contacted brokers for sale of 15, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi and carried on construction at GK property despite order of status quo granted by this Court with a mala fide and ullerior object of disposing or letting out or transferring of possession or portions of the aforesaid property and the built up area to third parties so as to deprive the plaintiff of his due share. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff then moved IA No. 711190 under Order 26, Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code praying for appointment of a local commissioner to report to this Court the position in respect of the persons who are- in possession of the portions of the aforesaid two properties. The Local Commissioner Shri Jayant Nath has already submitted his report which shows a blatant violation of the orders of this Court by respondents. The first floor of the garrage block was found to be an office of a construction organization, confirmed by one Mr. Mohan Magotia that respondent I was in-charge of the construction going on in the main premises. One Mr. The first floor of the garrage block was found to be an office of a construction organization, confirmed by one Mr. Mohan Magotia that respondent I was in-charge of the construction going on in the main premises. One Mr. Veeran Gupta also told that Noni Builders being the enterprise of respondent I wasengaged in the construction. About 50 persons were found fevereshly engaged in construction activities and the entire premises consisting of basement, ground floor and two other floors were newly built and lying vacant. Regarding 15, New Rohtak Road, the report of the local Commissioner showed that respondent I tried to play hide and seek with the Local Commissioner. In view of the obstructions caused by the second respondent in this petition and calling of police, the inspection of 15, New Rohtak Road could not be completed. Therefore, from the facts stated aforesaid, it is alleged that both the respondents were committing gross contempt of the orders of this Court with impunity and had no respect for Court. Respondsat I is further alleged to have speeded up the construction work after the visit of the Local Commissioner while respondent 2 prevented the Local Commissioner from carrying out the orders of this Court. Thus both the respondents were guilty of having committed contempt of this Court and, therefore, initiation of contempt proceedings was prayed. ( 11 ) DEFENDANTS I to 5 have opposed IA No. 4224/89 by means of filing a reply while respondents in this petition who are defendants I to 4 in the main suit have also opposed the contempt petition by filing a detailed reply. It is admitted that both the aforesaid properties are mentioned in Schedule II of the plaint and further that status quo was required to be maintained in respect of these properties also. Any motive to delay the filing of the written statement was denied. It is also denied if the defendants tried to take any advantage of the plaintiff being a handicapped person or that they were negotiating for the sale and disposal of the property at. Greater Kailash. It was further denied if the aforesaid property was HUF or that the plaintiff had a share in the same. It is also denied if defendants I to 5 had been contacting various brokers for the sale of this property. Greater Kailash. It was further denied if the aforesaid property was HUF or that the plaintiff had a share in the same. It is also denied if defendants I to 5 had been contacting various brokers for the sale of this property. All the material averments regarding the violation of the orders of this Court were denied in para 11 of the reply. It is further alleged that nowhere in IA No. 4224189, the plaintiff had stated that the constriiction of the GK property should be stopped. There was also no allegation that any construction at 15, New Robtak Road was being done or being attempted . Even in the prayer clause. , the plaintiff nowhere sought any relief for obtaining an order for stopping the construction Therefore, the order of status quo passed by this Court could not be taken to mean that defendants 1 to 5 were required to stop the construction. The order was to be read in the light of the application and the prayer made therein by the plaintiff. The order of status quo only operated to keep a status quo in respect of alienating and parting with possession Therefore, it was totally incorrect to say that the coastruction of GK property amounted to a violation of orders of this Court. It was not denied if the construction raised at GK was not new. The carrying on of construction activity by respondent I had not been prohibited under the orders of this Court. No prayer was also made in this application for stoppage of the construction activity. Therefore, the respondents stated that the contempt petition should be dismissed with costs. ( 12 ) I have heard arguments advanced by Mr. P. N. Lekhi, Senior Advocate, on behalf of the plaintiff and Mr. R. K. Anand, Sr. Advocate, on behalf of the defendants. ( 13 ) THERE is no doubt that in IA 4224189 status quo orders were passed regarding properties in Schedules I and II on 26th May, 1989. However, the exact import of the words status quo will have to be judged in the light of the prayer made in IA 4224189. The prayer in this application is that the defendants should be restrained from selling, alienating, encumbering or in any manner parting with the possession of the properties. There is no prayer in ?he entire application? However, the exact import of the words status quo will have to be judged in the light of the prayer made in IA 4224189. The prayer in this application is that the defendants should be restrained from selling, alienating, encumbering or in any manner parting with the possession of the properties. There is no prayer in ?he entire application? that the respondents I defendants I to 5 should be restrained from procedig with the construction in GK property. None of the word", used in ( 14 ) 4224189 can be stretched to mean that the plaintiff ever desired by means of this application a restraint order against the respondents/defendants 1 to 5 from proceeding with the construction on the GK property. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Lekhi that under status quo orders, the respondsnts/defendants 1 to 5 should not have proceeded further with the construction of the GK property does not seem to be tenable. On the other hand. the argument of Mr. Anand that status quo in such a situation cannot be interpreted to mean that there was restraint order against the respondents not to proceed with ces have rocketed sky high, and at the same wants defendant 1, his real sister-in-law and her daughter to be punished with contempt. This whole aforesaid conduct of the plaintiff is prima facie full of mala tides. The concept of justice transcends even the law, and when the Court is of the opinion that a party has not come to the Court with clean hand, it may even deny him some legally available relief, because the vision of the Court will go in search of justice. The hard facts which now stand before the Court are that the plaintiff at no stage desired the stoppage of construction activity at the GK property. It is also admitted that GK property stands in the name of defendant 1 only. Therefore, prima facie, defendant I being the registered owner of GK property since 1965, plaintiff or other heirs of late SMS have no interest in this property. No reason at all is given as to why this GK property lias been included in this second suit, when even late SMS, father of the plaintiff did not show it as ancestral or HUP property in the previously instituted suit. No reason at all is given as to why this GK property lias been included in this second suit, when even late SMS, father of the plaintiff did not show it as ancestral or HUP property in the previously instituted suit. The prima facie obvious reason could be that late SMS knew that the GK property was neither HUF nor ancestral property. Therefore, prima facie not only this suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code but also that neither GK property nor half share of New Rohtak Road property can be claimed for partition. Plaintiff obviously has not come to the Court with clean hands. Therefore, defendant I is free to carry on construction activity in GK property and deal with it in the manner she likes. ( 15 ) THIS CCP has, therefore, no merit and the same is here by dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.