Judgment JUDGMENT - This criminal appeal pursuant to the special leave granted by this Court arises under the following circumstances. 2. The appellant, Govindamma is the plaintiff in Suit No. 6396 of 91 and the second defendant in Suit No. 6356 of 1991 pending in the Court of City Civil Court, Madras. The suits relate to certain properties of the temple. The plaintiff and the defendants in these two suits claim to be the family members having right to the temple properties. Therefore, two cross suits are filed. It may not be necessary for the purpose of this case to go into other details. Suffice is to say, that the respondent No. 1, Veluswami filed a petition u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. in the High Court alleging that he was dispossessed with the help of the Police force while giving effect to ad-interim injunction order. The High Court entertained it as a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and ultimately gave a direction to the effect that there would be Police protection in favour of Veluswami till the injunction application in O.S. No. 6356/91 is disposed of by the trial Court and further directed that the Civil Court should dispose it of on merits according to law within a period of two months. He further directed that the said order would be in force till the application of interim injunction is disposed of and the parties may approach the High Court for modification of the order. 3. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed. While the matter stood thus, Veluswami the petitioner before the High Court filed a Contempt Application No.419 of 1992 alleging that he was dispossessed and that his possession should be restored. This Contempt Petition is stated to be arising out of the order passed by the High Court in the petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. The same learned single Judge disposed of the Contempt Application on 14-9-92 giving a further direction that the Inspector of Police should render police assistance to Veluswami to keep the possession of the property till the application for interim injunction is disposed of finally one way or the other by the Civil Court. Thereafter, the City Civil Court as directed by the High Court disposed of the interim injunction application on 1-12-92 granting absolute injunction in favour of Veluswami. Thereafter, the City Civil Court as directed by the High Court disposed of the interim injunction application on 1-12-92 granting absolute injunction in favour of Veluswami. From the said order it appears that the learned City Civil Court Judge has referred to the facts as well as said directions of the High Court. 4. It is submitted that as against the said order of the City Civil Court, the appellant before us, namely Govindamma has preferred C.M.A. No. 170/ 92 and the same is said to be pending before the Appellate Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant before us submits that the High Court has wrongly exercised jurisdiction under S. 482, Cr. P.C. when the matter is pending before the City Civil Court. He further submits that the order of the High Court is illegal and further the consequent order on the Contempt Application passed is also illegal and, therefore, this order should be set aside. His further submission is that when the matter is pending before the City Civil Court, the only remedy left for any aggrieved party is to approach the High Court, and not to invoke jurisdiction of the Civil Court under S. 482, Cr. P.C. We find considerable force in his submission. However, having regard to the subsequent events that have taken place namely, an absolute injunction order passed by the City Civil Court and the pendency of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 170/92 before the Appellate Court against the said order, the orders passed by the High Court of Madras under S.482. Cr. P.C. in Cr1. OP No.9613/ 91 as well as in Contempt Application No.419/92 in our view, and any observations made in these two orders should not have any effect on the decisions of the Civil Court. Now the C.M.A. No. 170/92 pending before the Appellate Court, i.e. City Civil Court, Madras, shall be disposed of on merits without being influenced by any of these two orders passed by the High Court. These two orders passed by the High Court have in a way become infructuous. No further orders are necessary. 6. The criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly. For Citation: AIR 1994 SC 751