Judgment : 1. The applicant filed the suit C.S.No.92 of 1997 on the file of this court, seeking a decree, directing the respondent herein to continue the clearing and forwarding agency of the applicant as per the agreement dated 111. 1986, renewed and confirmed by letter dated 14. 1994. 2. Along with the plaint, he also filed an application O.A.No. 98 of 1997 seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent or their men from in any manner acting upon the termination letter dated 11. 97, either by discontinuing the contract or by awarding the same to any other third party pending disposal of the main suit. 3. By order dated 22. 97 this Court granted interim injunction for a period of two weeks i.e., till 13. 97. 4. On 3. 97 the respondent filed three applications viz., Application No.911 of 1997 to revoke the leave granted. Application No. 912 of 1997 to vacate the interim injunction and Application No.913 of 1997 to refer the dispute to arbitration. On 13. 97 all the applications were listed and the interim injunction was extended by one week. Since both the parties insisted that the applications to be heard and disposed of at an early date, the applications were posted for arguments on 13. 97 and were heard on the same day and the judgment was reserved. The orders were pronounced on 33. 97. subsequent to the reservation of orders by this Court and before even the order was pronounced, the respondent had despatched the stocks by themselves as well as through some agencies, in utter contravention of the injunction order in Application O.A.No.98 of 1997 and hence they are liable to be punished for contempt of court for their disobedience of the order of this Court. Hence the contempt application has been filed. 5. The respondent has filed counter. Though so many things have been stated in the counter affidavit, it is unnecessary to deal with all the averments, as this Court is now concerned as to whether the respondent had contravened the order of this court in O.A.No.98 of 1997. It is the respondents case that on 13. 97 the interim injunction was extended by one week and thereafter the injunction was not extended. The petitioner also did not take any steps for the extension of the interim order. It is the respondents case that on 13. 97 the interim injunction was extended by one week and thereafter the injunction was not extended. The petitioner also did not take any steps for the extension of the interim order. Hence the interim order granted by this Court in O.A.No.98 of 1997 on 22. 97 came to an end by 13. 97 and as such whatever the transaction has been done by the respondents subsequent to 13. 97 cannot be said to be in contravention or disobedience of the interim order. It is the further contention of the respondent that the injunction is restraining the respondent from in any manner acting upon the termination letter dated 11. 97, either by discontinuing the contract or by awarding the same to any other third party. Since the respondents themselves had carried on the business, without awarding the contract to any third party, the conduct of the respondents will not amount to defying the order of this court and hence they have not committed any contempt. However, by way of abundant caution, the respondents have also offered their unconditional apology, in case if this court finds that the respondents have committed contempt. 6. Both the counsel reiterated what is stated in the affidavit as well as in the counter, Mr. Sriram Panchu, the counsel for the respondent added that the applicant has not brought to the notice of this court, the terms of the agreement dated 111. 86 and as such this Court, without ascertaining the terms of the agreement and the rights of the parties, had granted interim injunction. Since the applicant did not come to the court with clean hands, he is not entitled to enforce the order of interim injunction. 7. I carefully considered the contention of both the counsel. In the contempt application this court has to consider whether the order of this Court has been contravened or disobeyed by the respondents. The undisputed facts are:- .(i) By order dated 22. 97 this Court has granted interim injunction for a period of two weeks, restraining the respondents from in any manner acting upon the termination letter dated 11. 97, either by discontinuing the contract or by awarding the same to any other third party. .(ii) The said order of interim injunction had been directed to continue for a further period of one week on 13. 97. On 13. 97, either by discontinuing the contract or by awarding the same to any other third party. .(ii) The said order of interim injunction had been directed to continue for a further period of one week on 13. 97. On 13. 97 the application was heard and the orders were reserved. (iii) The orders were pronounced on 33. 97. The respondents had despatched the stocks by themselves in between 13. 97 and 33. 97. 8. From the above undisputed facts, the contention of the counsel for the respondent is that from 13. 97 to 33. 97 the date of pronouncement of the order, there was no injunction restraining the respondents from discontinuing the contract or awarding the same to any other third party. But, however, with due respect to the orders of the court, the respondents had not appointed anyone else. But, however, they, themselves personally carried on the trade. As the interim order was not in force during the said period, the respondent cannot be said to have committed any contempt of court. 9. It may be pertinent to note that as admitted by the respondent, the interim order has been extended by one week from 13. 97 and on 33. 97 the matter was heard and orders were reserved. On 33. 97 the orders were pronounced. In the final orders, this Court held that the leave granted is liable to be revoked and accordingly the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation before the proper forum. However, taking into consideration of the circumstances of the case, this Court has directed the interim injunction granted in O.A.No.98 of 1997 to continue for three weeks from 33. 97. The respondents have filed an appeal in O.S.A.No.96 of 1997 and obtained an order of stay on 197. Hence from 22. 97 the interim injunction was in force till 13. 97 and further from 33. 97 to 24. 97. The orders were reserved on 13. 97. In such circumstance, the question is whether the respondent can take advantage of the non-extension of the interim order after the orders were reserved and till the orders were pronounced. I am of the view that when the interim injunction has been extended on 13. 97 and the matter was argued and orders were reserved on 13. 97, the interim injunction is to have been continued till the orders were pronounced finally. I am of the view that when the interim injunction has been extended on 13. 97 and the matter was argued and orders were reserved on 13. 97, the interim injunction is to have been continued till the orders were pronounced finally. When once the interim order is in force on the date when the matter was heard and orders were reserved, the parties are expected to maintain status-quo, as on the date of the reservation of the order, till the orders were finally pronounced. The parties cannot be permitted to take such a technical advantage. It would be a different question whether the matter has been repeatedly adjourned at the request of one party or the other and the interim order has not been directed to continue or extended further. When once the interim order was in force and the matter was finally heard and the orders were reserved, there is absolutely no necessity for extension of the interim order any further until the court passes the final orders. As stated already, the interim order is deemed to be in continuation or in force till the final order is delivered or pronounced. Hence I have no hesitation to conclude that the respondents have done the transaction in disobedience of the order of injunction of this Court in O.A.No.98 of 1997. 10. The alternative contention put forth by the counsel for the respondent really exposes them as to how they want to give a go by to the interim order of this Court. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the agreement should not be awarded to some third party and the respondents, without entering into any agreement with third parties, they themselves have dealt with the trade and hence there is no contravention of the order of this Court. This defence is taken only on the basis of the second part of the interim order. The first part of the interim order is the respondents are restrained from discontinuing the contract with the plaintiff. When once the respondents started the trade on their own, impliedly it will amount to discontinuation of the contract with the plaintiff. The purport of the order of interim injunction is the respondents contract with the plaintiff is distribution of the drugs should continue until this Court passes the final order in the application till 13. 97 and thereafter as extended. The purport of the order of interim injunction is the respondents contract with the plaintiff is distribution of the drugs should continue until this Court passes the final order in the application till 13. 97 and thereafter as extended. As stated already, even though the order has not been extended beyond 13. 97, the same deemed to have been in force till 33. 97. The parties are expected to wait for the final orders, when once the interim order was in force on the date of the hearing of the application and reservation of orders. Hence on this ground also I am not able to agree with the counsel for the respondent. The way in which the respondents had acted, I have no doubt that they have done so only on the advice of their counsel and not of their own. Hence I am of the view that they can be punished by way of fine. 11. Accordingly I find that the respondent guilty of contempt of court for the wilful disobedience of the order of this Court in O.A.No.98 of 1997 and punish them with a fine of Rs. 2,000. The fine amount is to be deposited within one week from today.