S. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the plaintiff/appellant in F. M. A. No. 773 of 1996 for initiating a contempt proceeding against the defendants-respondents so as to punish and/or suitably deal with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with reference to an Order dated June 4, 1996 passed by this Bench in the abovementioned appeal. In response to a show cause notice, issued on this application, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have affirmed their respective affidavit-in-opposition to which there was affidavits-in-reply also furnished on behalf of the petitioner. ( 2 ) AS alleged in the application, the Respondents/contemners have wilfully, deliberately and contumaciously violated the order dated June 4, 1996, whereby the parties in the appeal were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the suit premises being portion of the premises No. 7, St. George's Gate Road, Calcutta more fully described in the schedule of the plaint in the suit touching the masonry boundary wall thereon. The suit in question being Tile Suit No. 920 of 1996 pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents, their men, servants, agents or assigns from carrying on any unauthorised construction, additions or alterations of a permanent nature in the suit premises as also from committing the acts of waste and nuisance in the suit premises. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-Company, being the plaintiff in the suit had filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction and also for an ad interim order but the Court below refused the prayer and, accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered first as F. M. A. T. No. 1112 of 1996 and, subsequently, as F. M. A. No. 773 of 1996. While admitting the appeal by the Order dated April 18, 1996 this Bench had given direction to maintain status quo for a period of 10 days and, subsequently, by the Order dated June 4, 1996 (said to have been violated) there was again an order directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property pending the disposal of the suit before the Trial Court. It may be added here that the order of the status quo was passed with the object that fresh and new construction will not be made to change the nature and use of the property which exists from before. It was further clarified in the order itself that the defendants/respondents (the alleged contemners) were free to maintain the garden and also to replacement of bulbs of electric fault or any miscellaneous nature of thing which did not amount to a construction or change the nature of the property in dispute. ( 4 ) NOW, straightway coming to the allegation levelled by the petitioner-Company it is to be found in the application that the respondents in collusion and conspiracy with each other have, during the subsistence of the order dated June 4, 1996, made massive change by deliberately and contumaciously changing the nature and character of the suit property by digging earth, constructing and installing eight light-towers and fixing tumbles on the ground of the lawn. It was, further, urged that the respondent No. 1 in collusion with the respondent No. 2 has appointed the respondent No. 3 as contractor to make further illegal and unauthorised construction at the suit property and, for that purpose, some building materials like bamboos, cement and stones have been stored at the site. ( 5 ) IN the backdrop of the above allegations, it seems necessary first to point out that the portion of the suit premises, with respect to which the allegations have been pin-pointed, was a vacant land used as a lawn uncontrovertedly being in possession of the contending respondents who had their dwelling house being premises No. 8, St. George's Gate Road, Calcutta which situate adajcent to the suit premises being premises No. 7, St. George's Gate Road, Calcutta. ( 6 ) THERE is no gainsaying that as many as 8 light-towers have been installed at the site of the suit premises, of course, only six out of those eight towers said to be in precinct of the suit premises, the remaining two outside the said precinct. The only question posed in this regard for present consideration is whether the installation of those light towers, be it eight or six in numbers, were in the nature of permanent construction so as to change the nature and character of the suit property resulting into violation of the order of status quo. The only question posed in this regard for present consideration is whether the installation of those light towers, be it eight or six in numbers, were in the nature of permanent construction so as to change the nature and character of the suit property resulting into violation of the order of status quo. ( 7 ) TWO sets of photographs, one from each side, were produced on the record so as to have a clear view of the light towers and also to tentatively determine the nature and character thereof. The pictorial view of those towers, depicted from both the sets of photographs, was almost the same and, therefore, there was no difficulty in locating the identity and the situation of those towers at the site of the suit premises. No dispute was also raised that the photographs were of the towers involved in the matter. As such, we looked upon the photographs with the pin-point submissions and references made with regard to the photographs with the help of the counsel for the parties. The set of photographs as produced on behalf of the respondents also depicts the pictorical view of hand lifting of the light towers by an individual. ( 8 ) ON looking upon the pictorial view depicted by the two sets of photographs as also having very carefully comparing those we were left with the only impression that the light towers were not embedded deep in the earth on the lawn rather those were moveable and could be easily lifted by an individual. From the submissions made on behalf of the respondents we feel more inclined to accept the explanation offered in this regard that the base of the tower was made of cast iron and the upper portion thereof was made of fibre glass with a result that those could be placed on the ground itself without penetrating the earth. This being the position, it could be hardly accepted that the placing of the towers could be had only by way of some sorts of construction on the ground after digging the earth thereon, and, fixing those permanently at the site. In a situation like this, it would simply give an impression that the light towers were like some moveable properties and those had been placed on the lawn only for the purpose of decorative light. In a situation like this, it would simply give an impression that the light towers were like some moveable properties and those had been placed on the lawn only for the purpose of decorative light. This sort of placing the towers, in our considered opinion, would not change the nature and character of the suit property. The relevant portion of the suit property being a lawn would naturally continue to remain in use only as a lawn with those decorative light towers. ( 9 ) IN wake of the contextual facts as noticed in the preceding paragraph it would be further relevant to place on the record that by the order dated June 4, 1996, there was already a clarification made in favour of the respondents that they were free to maintain the garden as also to replace the bulbs of electric fault or to do any miscellaneous nature of thing which, of course, did not amount to a construction or changing the nature of the property in dispute. With such clarification already made in the order, we do not think, the act of the respondents in placing the light-towers as alleged would in any view of the matter constitute an act violative of the aforesaid order of status quo. ( 10 ) FURTHER, true it was that there is an admission in the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that there was stacking of some building materials but, in this regard, there was a categorical clarification made that those materials had been stored inside the godown at the adjacent premises No. 8, St. George's Gate Road, Calcutta, which was admittedly in occupation of the respondents. It has been further explained on affirmation that those materials were there just to carry out some minor repair works in the building at premises No. 8, St. George's Gate Road, Calcutta and not for any construction over any portion of the suit premises being premises No. 7, St. George's Gate Road, Calcutta. During the course of hearing, there was submission made at the Bar on behalf of the respondents that the object behind storing those materials as above could be recorded also by way of an undertaking on behalf of the respondents, that is to say that there would be no construction made on any portion of the suit premises with those building materials being bamboo, cement and stones. We are confident enough that this sort of undertaking supposed to have been given by the respondents would most certainly serve the purpose and, in all probabilities, this must also do away with the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner-Company and that being as such, there was absolutely no necessity to haul up the respondents in a contempt proceeding. ( 11 ) IN the given facts and circumstances of the case we could not be convinced so as to initiate a proceeding against the respondents for contempt of Court's order dated June 4, 1996 passed in F. M. A. No. 773 of 1996, and, accordingly, the prayer as such fails. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. ( 12 ) SHREE RANG MISRA, J. :- I agree. Petition dismissed.