JUDGMENT B.M. Mitra, J. The instant revisional application is directed against Order No. 17 dated May 31, 1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 142 of 1996. The connected misc. appeal arises out of an order passed by the Trial Court where two applications were disposed of, namely, one application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act and another application for injunction. By the impugned order passed at the trial stage, this Court has been apprised that while disposing of the application for injunction, an order of status quo was passed and the Court also dismissed the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. During the pendency of the connected appeal before the learned District Judge, Howrah, an application for stay was pressed into service on, inter alia, two-fold grounds, namely, in view of initiation of a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure which is pending before the Trial Court. Unless the alleged contemnors are purged of contempt, they have no right of hearing. The second ground on which stay has been prayed for is that an inventory which was allowed should be directed to be completed. After marathon hearing of the matter and on hearing both the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that he is assailing the order impugned but nevertheless he in his fairness has stated that his client is prepared to co-operate with the order of inventory. Mr. Banerjee has submitted a list of dates and he has drawn the attention of this Court and has stated that there was a strike on August 1, 1994 called by the labourers for an indefinite period and the same was followed up by initiation of a proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure which led to a proceeding for invocation of writ jurisdiction but in spite of an order being obtained the petitioners could not succeed in accelerating the police authorities so that they could make an entry into the factory. It is further stated that in accordance with the order of inventory in presence of the lawyer for the petitioner an attempt was made but it could not be opened because of the obstruction made from inside. However, Mr. It is further stated that in accordance with the order of inventory in presence of the lawyer for the petitioner an attempt was made but it could not be opened because of the obstruction made from inside. However, Mr. Dasgupta, learned Advocate for the opposite parties, has relied on a separate set of list of dates and he has contended that the trail of litigations will cluster its shadow which has cast cloud on inventory being completed because of resistance given by the present petitioner in diverse proceedings. Mr. Dasgupta has further taken the wind out of the sail by referring to the statement of Mr. Banerjee that his client in spite of doing everything is prepared to do the needful for co-operation to complete the inventory. 2. In the wake of the above statements, this Court is required to look into the merit of the order impugned. This Court feels that in terms of the order passed on October 5, 1996 the learned Assistant District Judge in the connected suit allowed an application for police help to assist the Commissioner to execute the process of inventory with the inventory Commission. Even references were drawn from the reports filed from time to time by the Inventory Commissioner pointing out that due to non-cooperation of the petitioner the same could not be completed. Mr. Dasgupta also hinted at collusion between the present petitioner and the police authorities to frustrate the completion of inventory. This Court does not feel inclined to go into that part of controversy in view of the fact that Mr. Banerjee's client has no objection to the inventory to be held. Therefore, the connected Appeal Court being the Court of the learned District Judge is hereby directed to give necessary direction in favour of the Commissioner so that he can get adequate police help in order to make inventory. 3. There is another dimension of the controversy on which the order impugned seems to have been passed. It has been pinpointed that in view of initiation and pendency of a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC with regard to the alleged violation of the order of status quo passed by the Trial Court, unless the contemnors are purged of contempt, they have no right of hearing and the matter is required to remain stayed. It has been pinpointed that in view of initiation and pendency of a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC with regard to the alleged violation of the order of status quo passed by the Trial Court, unless the contemnors are purged of contempt, they have no right of hearing and the matter is required to remain stayed. In resolution of the controversy sought to be raised about that point, the learned District Judge, Howrah seems to have relied on a decision of Sir Asutosh in the case of Raj Rajeswari Jiu & Ors. vs. Gati Krishna Chakraborty & Ors., reported in 1924 Calcutta 953 where it has been held that in a case where one of the party litigants has given an undertaking before the Court that he will put the requisite court fees for the purpose of presentation of the appeal and after undertaking he failed to comply with the said undertaking. Sir Asutosh has significantly observed that if in breach of an undertaking given to court by a litigant a particular course of action is adopted, the same is amounting to misconduct giving rise to contempt. In the backdrop of the said decision, this Court has the occasion to interpret the same and Mr. Banerjee has referred to a decision in the case of D.B. Mukherjee vs. Gourepore Company Ltd., reported in 1976 CHN 663 where the court has held that the rule that a party in contempt cannot be heard is neither inflexible nor of universal application and the court has a discretion in the matter. Even a reference was made that just because a party is found to be in contempt, the court is not bound to deny him of assistance or protection and the same will be dependent on the facts of each and every case. The same has been followed by placement of reliance of a case of the State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Md. Yakub Khan & Ors., reported in SCC Vol. IV 1992 p. 167 where it has been held that the facts in that particular case disclose that the stakes are very high. The said issue remains to be decided at the time of hearing of the petition. Yakub Khan & Ors., reported in SCC Vol. IV 1992 p. 167 where it has been held that the facts in that particular case disclose that the stakes are very high. The said issue remains to be decided at the time of hearing of the petition. It will be a serious question to consider whether in the circumstance the writ petitioner was entitled and it would not be proper to decide any of the controversies at the stage of consideration of the main lis. A reference was made to another decision of this High Court where in the case of Kanti Tarafdar vs. S.K. Choudhury, Collector of Customs, reported in CHN Vol. I (1995) 369. A reference was made to the cited decision of the Apex Court where it had been observed that where the order complained of is appealed against and stay of operation is pending before the court, it will be appropriate take up for consideration or at least simultaneously with the complaint for contempt. Then a decision has been cited by Mr. Dasgupta in the case of State Trading Corporation & Ors. vs. Anjan Banerjee & Ors., reported at page 66 of the aforesaid volume where it has been held that the principle that a right of hearing of a party in contempt, till he purges himself of such contempt, is barred, is not an inviolable bar and admits of exceptions in the cause and interest of justice. Here, Mr. Banerjee has submitted that the application under section 34 should be treated on merits and the petition for injunction should also be disposed of and it should not remain inordinately stayed. According to Mr. Benerjee, the same is in bristled with the exception as envisaged in the decision of Sir Asutosh as referred to above. This Court feels that only a cryptic reference has been made in the impugned order by the learned District Judge by way of an observation. With due regard to the said legal proposition of law, he is of the view that the matter pending before the appeal forum is related to the matters involved in the suit pending before the court below. This cryptic observation does not appear to be in agreement with the exception as forecast in the line of the decisions flowing from the decision of Sir Asutosh. This cryptic observation does not appear to be in agreement with the exception as forecast in the line of the decisions flowing from the decision of Sir Asutosh. This Court, therefore, feels that order of stay cannot be passed in a blanket form and, for ends of justice, the main misc. appeal is required to be disposed of at an early date. 4. But this Court is of the view that inventory before the misc. appeal be taken up for hearing and should be directed to be completed at an early date so that the application does not ipso facto become infructuous. This Court cannot reconcile itself to the reality and cannot consider the submissions of Mr. Banerjee to his plea of co-operation with inventory being completed as his client may not be prejudiced by that. Therefore, let this matter be taken up by the District Judge on mentioning after communication of this order by the concerned lawyers so that police assistance may be offered to the Commissioner and he may be directed to hold the Inventory Commission with the aid of the police at the earliest possible date and after submission of his report and within ten days thereof the misc. appeal should be taken up for hearing. 5. Subject to the above observations, the revisional application thus stands disposed of. 6. Mr. Dasgupta, prays for deposit of special messenger's cost so that the order may be communicated from this court at the earliest opportunity but at the same time the Court of the learned District Judge be apprised about the purport of this order so that the said court can expedite the hearing of the misc. appeal after compliance with the direction of this Court. Appeal disposed of with directions.