S. C. VERMA, J. The petitioner has prayed that action under the provi sions of the Contempt of Court Act be taken against Sri. P. K. Srivastava, opposite party, for having wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 5- 6-1991 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19722 of 1992-Dr. Anirudh Nath Mishra v. The District Judge Gorakhpur and others, and the order dated 26-6-1992 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7178 of 1992 under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Anirudh Nath Mishra v. City Magistrate and others. 2. The brief facts which are relevant to appreciate the controversy relates to House No. 141/261 situate in Mohalla Andhyaribagh, Gorakhpur. One Ram Asrey Srivastava son of Sri Vindhyachal Srivastava claimed his rights in respect of the disputed property on the basis of a will executed on 29-8-1989 in his favour by his favour by his uncle Tribhuwan Lal Srivastava. One Atul Kumar Srivastava claimed his rights on the basis of a Mukhtarnama executed in his favour by Smt. Savitri Devi. The Station House Officer, Police Station Tewaripur submitted a report dated 12-1-1991 to the City Magistrate, Gorakh pur, that there was apprehension of breach of peace between Ram Asrey Lal and Atul Kumar Srivastava over the possession of the aforesaid house No. 141/261. A preliminary order under Section 145 (. 1), Cr. P. C. was issued on 15-3-1991 and thereafter on the application of Atul Kumar Srivastava and the police report dated 12-1-1991, the property was attached by order dated 13-5-1991 passed by Sri. P. K. Srivastava. City Magistrate, Gorakhpur and one Sri Digya Vijai Nath Misra was appointed as Supurdgar. On 24-8- 1991, the Station Officer, Police Station Tewaripur reported that the Supurdgar Sri Digya Vijai Nath Mishra was misusing the proper and the disputed house was being tried to convert into a Nursing Home. The City Magistrate, on the basis of the report dated 24-8-1991 passed an order dated 5-12-1991 for the change of the Supurdgar and the house in dispute was given in the Supurdgi of the Station Officer, Police Station Tewaripur. The Station Officer, Police Station Tewaripur, in pursuance of the aforesaid order, took charge as Supurd gar on 24-8-1991. 3. The City Magistrate, on the basis of the report dated 24-8-1991 passed an order dated 5-12-1991 for the change of the Supurdgar and the house in dispute was given in the Supurdgi of the Station Officer, Police Station Tewaripur. The Station Officer, Police Station Tewaripur, in pursuance of the aforesaid order, took charge as Supurd gar on 24-8-1991. 3. At this stage, it may be noted that the petitioner Anirudh Nath Mishra filed Civil Suit No. 1418 of 1991 and obtained on exparte decree dated 5-5-1991 in his favour in which it was declared that he is the owner in possession of the disputed property. The petitioner filed another Civil Suit No. 2028 of 1991 in respect of the disputed house impleading Ram Asrey Lal as the defen dant for injunction to restrain the defendant from dispossessing the petitioner from the disputed accommodation and obtained an ad interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. vide order dated 12-9-1991 restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the disputed property and also not to evict him forcibly. By another order dated 9-12-1991, the learned Munsif, Gorakhpur restrained the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs possession. The order of interim injunction passed on application 7-C in Suit No. 2028 of 1991 was confirmed by the learned Munsif, Gorakhpur by order dated 10-5-1992 after hearing the plaintiff and the defentdants. This order continues to be operative and no material has been brought on record which may indicate that the order dated 10-5-1992 confirming the injunction order dated 12-9-1991 and 9-12-1991 has been either vacated or modified. 4. Meanwhile in Case No. 56 of 1991 against the order dated 5-12-1991, Criminal Revision No. 238of 1991 was filed by Atul Kumar und it was also challenged in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 19y2 by Dr. Anirudh Nath Mishra before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Incharge District Judge by order dated 3-1- 1992 directed the Station Officer, Police Station Tewaripur to open the lock of the Nursing Home and to allow the revisionist Dr. Anirudh Nath Misra the smooth functioning of the Nursing Home on his executing personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and to submit a report within three days. Ram Asrey Lal filed an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. which was numbered as Criminal Misc. Anirudh Nath Misra the smooth functioning of the Nursing Home on his executing personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and to submit a report within three days. Ram Asrey Lal filed an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. which was numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 530 of 1992 against the order dated 3-1-1992 and an interim order dated 9-1-1992 was passed staying the operation of the order dated 3-1-1992 in case the same has not been given effect till 31-1-1992. The order dated 3-1-1992 was, in the meantime, stayed by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 10-1-1992 at the instance of the State Counsel who alleged that the same was passed exparte without hearing the State. 5. Anirudh Nath Mishra, the petitioner challenged the order dated 10-1-1992 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7j 4 of 1992 under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and this Court by order dated 17-1-1992 directed the aforesaid application to be listed along with Criminal Misc. Application No. 530 of 1992 and stayed further proceedings in Revision No. 4 of 1992 pending before the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur till 31-1- 1992. The implementation of the order dated 3-1-1992 was further directed to remain stayed till 30-7- 1992 by order dated 30-3-1992 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 530 of 1992. 6. The learned District Judge, Gorakhpur, by order dated 5-5-1992 in Criminal Revision No. 238 of 1991 and Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1992 set aside the order dated 5-12-1991 by which the Station Officer, Police Station, Tewaripur was appointed as Supurdgar and it was directed that Sri Digya Vijai Nath Mishra will continue to act as Receiver till his term of receivership is either terminated by the decision of the case or under the order of the Civil Court in accordance with law. The operative portion of the order dated 5-5-1992 is quoted below ; "both the revisions are hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 5-12-1991 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate is set aside. Sri Digvijai Nath Mishra will continue to act as a receiver till his term of receivership is terminated either by the decision of the case the orders of Civil Court or by an order changing the receiver passed in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 5-12-1991 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate is set aside. Sri Digvijai Nath Mishra will continue to act as a receiver till his term of receivership is terminated either by the decision of the case the orders of Civil Court or by an order changing the receiver passed in accordance with law. "it is made clear that the implementation of the interlocutory order dated 3-1-1991 passed by this court has been stayed by the Honble High Court vide orders passed on 30-3-1992. The Magistrate wilt keep in mind this order while proceeding further with the case. Though the decision of the revision ordinarily puts on end to the interlocutory orders and the order dated 3-1-1991 if any (there is no such order dated 3-1-1991) stands exhausted but the orders of Honble High Court remains. "let a copy of this judgment be placed on the record of Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1992 and the original be placed on the record of Criminal Revision No. 238 of 1991. " 7. The order dated 5-5-1992 was challenged by Ram Asrey Lal before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 698 of 1992 and the following order was passed in the aforesaid revision on 12-5-1992 : "heard.-Issue Notice to the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 to show cause why this Criminal Revision should not be admitted. List for admission on 31st August, 1992. The operation of the order dated 5-5-1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Revision No. 238 of 1991 Atul Kumar v. State ofu. P. and others. Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1992 Anirudh Nath Mishra v. State ofu. P. and others, will remain suspended till* 2nd September, 1992. " 8. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved on account of the continuance of possession of the Supurdgar, the Station Officer, Police Station Tewaripur and the premises being locked, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19722 of 1992 and the following interim order dated 5-6-1992 was passed. :- "apart from the normal mode of service, the petitioner shall take steps within three days to serve the respondent No. 3 out of Court for which purpose the office will handover the necessary Dasti Summons etc. the learned counsel for the petitioner fixing 17th July 1992 as the date for the admission of the writ petition by which date the respondent No. 3 may file a counter affidavit. the learned counsel for the petitioner fixing 17th July 1992 as the date for the admission of the writ petition by which date the respondent No. 3 may file a counter affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks time to file a counter affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner may file a rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. List this petition for admission on 17th July, 1992. In the meanwhile the respondent No. 2 shall ensure the functioning of the Nursing Home in question by the petitioner under the supervision of the spurdar already appointed till 17-7-1992. " 9. Sri Anirudh Nath Mishra filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7178 of 1992 under Section 432, Cr. P. C. and the following order was passed on 26-6-1992 : "heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order dated 12-5-1992 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application 698 of 1992, Issue notice calling for counter affidavit within two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter, List for hearing on 17-7-1992. This Court directed in the Writ Petition referred to above that Nursing Home shall function and the respondent No. 1 was directed to ensure its functioning till further orders. In view of that order no bick can remain on the Nursing Home and as prayed by the applicant it is hereby directed that the respondent No. I shall open the lock of the Nursing Home situate in premises No. 141 /261, Andhiyari Bagh, Gorakhpur, as already directed by this Court within ten days". 10. It may be indicated that the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur was impleaded as respondent No. 2 and Sri Ram Asrey Srivastava as respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid petition. The order dated 5-6-1992 was served on the opposite party but instead of complying the same, he passed an order dated 20-6-1992 seeking clarification from this Court. Criminal Revision No. 883 of 1992 was filed by Ram Asrey Srivastava against the order dated 20-6-1992 passed by the opposite party and this court by order dated 7-7-1992 directed that Criminal Revision No. 698 of the 1992, 530 of 1992 and 743 of 1992 be listed together. By order dated 9-7-1992, Writ Petition No. 19722 of 1992 and Criminal Miscel laneous Application No. 7178 of 1992 were also directed to be listed. By order dated 9-7-1992, Writ Petition No. 19722 of 1992 and Criminal Miscel laneous Application No. 7178 of 1992 were also directed to be listed. This Court considered all the matters Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 530 of 1992 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 743 of 1992, Criminal Revision No. 698 of 1992 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 883 of 1,992 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7178 of 1992 along with Civil Misce llaneous Writ Petition No. 19721 of 1992 and disposed them of by a common judgment dated 24-8-1992. The concluding portion ot the aforesaid order is as follows :- "taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the pendency of the Civil Suit No. 2028 of 1991 and the possibility of the parties being put to harass ment in future, I arrive at the conclusion particularly in the interest of justice that proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. should be quashed. The proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. giving rise to all the aforesaid cases, are consequently quashed and all the earlier orders passed therein stand vacated. The parties are, however, directed to work out their right in the Civil Court. From the point of view of the safety and protection to the accommodation in question and the articles lying therein, they ("parties) are further directed to maintain status quo over the disputed accommodation until the order regarding the possession etc. is passed by the Civil Court. It Is made explicitly clear that this order will not put any bar in any manner whatsoever to the civil court proceeding further to decide the aforesaid civil suits on merits in accordance with law. All the criminal revisions, miscelloneous applications, miscellaneous case and writ petition stand merged in this order. All the cases referred to above stand disposed of accordingly. " 11. The present Contempt Petition was filed on 13-7-1992 and notices were directed to be issued to the opposite party by order dated 13-7-1992. All the criminal revisions, miscelloneous applications, miscellaneous case and writ petition stand merged in this order. All the cases referred to above stand disposed of accordingly. " 11. The present Contempt Petition was filed on 13-7-1992 and notices were directed to be issued to the opposite party by order dated 13-7-1992. The opposite party Sri P. K. Srivastava filed his counter affidavit on 2-9-1992 bringing on record the aforesaid facts and taking the stand that as the order dated 12-6-1992 passed in Criminal Revision No. 698 of 1992 was in existence and has not been vacated or modified, it was difficult for him to comply the order dated 5-6-1992 and such he passed tire order dated 20-6-1992 seeking clarification of the order of this Court. It was further alleged that after he received the order dated 26-6-1992, this court has passed an order in Criminal Revision No. 883 of 1992 to put up case No. 698 of 1992 along with case No. 530 of 1992 and 743 of 1992 on 17-7-1992. Sri P. K. Srivastava also sent his clerk to this Court to find out the present position and then the case was fixed for 8-7-1992. Since the case was fixed for 17-7-1992 by this Court and as all these cases have been finally disposed of by order dated 24-8-1992, he was waiting to obtain the copy of the judgment. It was further alleged that the order dated 5-6-1992 in writ petition No. 19722 of 1992 was obtained after stating incorrect and incomplete facts and the petition was not main tainable and the petitioner Anirudh Nath Misra is neither the owner of the disputed house nor he has any title over the same and he was not made party to proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. and as such he is not an aggrieved person. 12. After filing the aforesaid counter-affidavit, the opposite party filed a supplementary counter-affidavit on 14-9-1992 reiterating the aforesaid facts and also placed on record the judgment dated 24-8-1,92 passed by Honble Surya Prasad, J. 13. In the aforesaid conspectus of facts, it has to the seen as to whether the opposite party has wilfully and deliberately violated the Courts order and has interfered with due course of justice as also the contemptuous conduct on his part is liable to be punished for contempt. In the aforesaid conspectus of facts, it has to the seen as to whether the opposite party has wilfully and deliberately violated the Courts order and has interfered with due course of justice as also the contemptuous conduct on his part is liable to be punished for contempt. While considering the wilful and deliberate violation of the order of the Court, it has to be seen that the act of contempt is not out of an innocent motive, but deliberate and inten tional and the persistent and adamant conduct by the contemner which is reprehensible. The orders passed by this Court dated 5-6-1992 and 26-6-1992 contain clear and positive direction and there is no occasion to misinterpret or misunderstand the direction. The justification given by the contemner that the order dated 5-6-1992 was obtained on the basis of incorrect and incom plete facts as also there was another order passed by this Court, dated 12- 5-1992 which was operative and, in these circumstances, he sought clarifica tion by making reference have to be considered to test whether on the basis of these conditions he was justified in not complying the orders. 14. By the subsequent order dated 26-6-1992 in Criminal Misc. Appli cation No. 7178 of 1992, again specific direction was given to the respondent No. 1 Sri P. K. Srivastava, City Magistrate, to open the lock of the Nursing Home situate in 141/261, Andhiyari Bagh, Gorakhpur. In the same order it has been stated that the order dated 12-5-1990 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 698 of 1992 was perused. This indicates that the direction contained in the order dated 26-6-1992 issued by the High Court was passed after considering the order dated 12-5-1992 passed by the High Court and during the pendency of the same. By order dated 12-5-1992 passed by Honble High Court, the operation of the order dated 5-5-1992 was stayed and in the order dated 5-5-h-92, the only direction was that the order of the City Magis trate dated 5-12-1991 directing the appointment of another Supurdgar was set aside and Sri Digya Vijai Nath Mishra was directed to continue as receiver. 15. In the order dated 5-12-1991, there was no direction regarding the opening of the locks of the Nursing Home and regarding the functioning of the Nursing Home in the disputed building. 15. In the order dated 5-12-1991, there was no direction regarding the opening of the locks of the Nursing Home and regarding the functioning of the Nursing Home in the disputed building. These specific directions are contained only in the orders dated 5-6-1992 and 26-6-1992. Both these orders are subsequent to the passing of this order dated 12-5-1992. Moreover, there seems to be no justification on the part of the opposite party to seek any clarification through his order dated 20-6-1992. This action, it appears, was taken by him to circumvent and delay the compliance of the orders dated 5-6-J 992 and 26-6-1992, The opposite party has admitted that Dr. Nath Mishra was not party to proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. In these circumstances, it is established that the opposite party was only trying to delay the delivery of possession and charge of the building in which the Nursing Home was housed in favour of Dr. Anirudh Nath Mishra. The oppo site party has also indicated that he had, on coming to know that in Criminal Revision No. 883 of 1992, all these cases have been directed to be disposed of together and 7-7-1992 has been fixed, he fixed the date as 8-7-1992 for orders and sent his Court Clerk to High Court to find out the present position and thereafter when he was informed that 7- 7-1992 has been fixed, he, instead of passing any order, again postponed the matter. 16. In my opinion, the conduct of the opposite party Sri P. K. Srivastava fully proves that he was siding one of the party and was only trying to delay the compliance of the orders dated 5-6-1992 and 26-6- 1992 and was also trying to find out some excuse to postpone the hearing. It cannot be left to the choice of the contemner to evade compliance of the orders of this Court on the ground that there are contradictory orders and to allow him camouflage by giving h is own interpretation. 17. Even in the final order dated 24-8-1992 which the opposite party considers to be the sheet-anchor, there is no finding that the petitioner shall not be entitled to possession. 17. Even in the final order dated 24-8-1992 which the opposite party considers to be the sheet-anchor, there is no finding that the petitioner shall not be entitled to possession. Only an observation has been made by Honble Surya Prasad, J. that on perusal of the record, it has not been disclosed by the petitioner on what date he came in possession over the disputed accommoda tion and he actually opened the Nursing Home. He is the real brother of Sri Digya Vijay Nath Mishra who was initially appointed as Supurdgar and about whom it was alleged that he misused his position as Supurdgar. It has also been observed that Dr. Anirudh Nath Mishra does not appear to have been a party to the proceedings initiated under Section 145, Cr. P. C. although ia. fact he appears to be keenly interested in the accommodation in suit. In these circumstances, the learned Judge directed that the parties would work out their rights in the Civil Court and the parties to the proceedings were directed to maintain status quo over the disputed accommodation until the order regarding possession etc. is passed by the Civil Court. It appears that the learned Judge was not taken through the orders already passed by the Court of Munsif, Gorakhpur in Suit No. 1418 of 1991, dated 5-5-1991 and the order of injunction in Suit No. 2023 of 1991, dated 12-9-1991, 9-12-1991 and 10-5-1992. I am surprised that the opposite party, even after the orders dated 5-5-1991, 12-9-1991, 9-12-1991 and 10-5-1992 were placed before him did not consider it necessary to direct for the compliance of the orders of this Court. Instead he passed the order dated 10-9-1992 dropping the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 24-8-1992 and directed for the continuance of possession of the premises under the Supurdgi of the Station Officer, Police Station Tiwaripur. 18. In the presence of the aforesaid material and the direction, it is not understandable why the opposite party was interested to retain the possession by the Supurdgar even thougn, according to his own order dated 10-9-1992, all proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were set aside and had come to an end. It cannot be accepted that the petitioner who! P. C. were set aside and had come to an end. It cannot be accepted that the petitioner who! was fighting teeth and nail to obtain possession of the Nursing Home had not placed the orders of the Civil Court dated 5-5-1991, 12-9-1991, 9-12-1991 and 10-5-1992 either before the passing of the order dated 24-8-1992 or after the passing of the same. There seems to be no reason why orders dated 5-6-1992 and 26-6-1992 were not complied initially and even after the passing of the order dated 24-8-1992, the possession of the Nursing Home was not delivered to the peti tioner, instead it was allowed to be retained by the Supurdgar appointed in proceedings under Section 145, Cr, P. C, The direction issued in the order dated 24-8-1992 to maintain status quo over the disputed accommodation was to the parties to the proceedings. Admittedly, Dr Anirudh Nath Mishra was not a party to the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and there is no direction contained in the order dated 24-8-1992 not to open the locks of the Nursing Home and to deliver possession to Dr. Anirudh Nath Mishra. 19. I have considered the matter in the light of various orders passed by this Court and the entire material on record and I am fully satisfied that the specific direction in the order dated 5-6-1992 and 26- 6-1992 in favour of Dr. Anirudh Nath Misra to open the lock of the Nursing Home and to ensure the functioning of the Nursing Home by the petitioner under the supervision of the Supurdgar have neither been revoked nor superseded. Even the orders of the Civil Court or in his favour. All this leads to the irresistible conclusion that the persistent and adamant conduct of the opposite party is reprehensible and he has deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the orders of this Court and the contemptuous conduct which has interfered in the course of justice is liable to be punished for contempt. I am also fully satisfied that Sri P. K. Srivastava, opposite party, has shown scant respect for and utter disregard to the orders of this Court and tried to delay and defeat the delivery of possession by adopting ingenious device and subterfuges. 20. I have also considered the conditional apology tendered by the opposite party. I am also fully satisfied that Sri P. K. Srivastava, opposite party, has shown scant respect for and utter disregard to the orders of this Court and tried to delay and defeat the delivery of possession by adopting ingenious device and subterfuges. 20. I have also considered the conditional apology tendered by the opposite party. It has been stated that the unconditional apology is tendered only if the Honble Court comes to the conclusion that the respondent has dis obeyed the orders. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice and the opposite party Sri P. K. Srivastava is imposed a fine of Rs. 2000 which he will pay within one month, failing which he would undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months. Order accordingly. .