BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Court passed an order of status quo on 25-8-1999. Thereafter an application came to be filed alleging disobedience of the order of this Court. Counter has been filed by Collector-respondent No. 1 who says that the order was received by the respondent on 31-8-1999 and he immediately communicated it to the executing agency. The work had in fact been taken up on 7-7-1999 much before filing of the Writ Petition. The order of this court has not been violated at all. After receipt of the order no construction was made. The petitioner on the other hand has produced some photographs and has stated that even after the order of the Court the construction went on. ( 2 ) NOW, it is a disputed question whether the construction went on after the order of status quo was passed, or not. Therefore, it needs to be decided by leading evidence. However, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the respondents relies on a judgment of Supreme Court in state of J and K vs. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and others. According to the learned Advocate general, since the respondents had filed a vacate Stay Petition immediately after the order was received, therefore contempt proceedings would not lie. He submits that, the order has not become final as the respondents had filed a detailed counter and a vacate stay petition on 6-9-99, since no orders have been passed in the vacate stay petition even if it was shown that the respondents had proceeded with the construction that would not amount to contempt of Court. This argument cannot be accepted. This is not the import of the judgment referred to above by the learned advocate General. Para 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced:"5. We find great force in the argument of Mr. Salve that so long the stay matter in the writ petition was not finally disposed of, the further proceeding in the contempt case was itself misconceived and no orders therein should have been passed. Mr. Bhandare appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, who is respondent before us, has strenuously contended that the orders passed in the contempt proceedings should be treated to have disposed of the stay matter in the writ petition also. Mr. Bhandare appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, who is respondent before us, has strenuously contended that the orders passed in the contempt proceedings should be treated to have disposed of the stay matter in the writ petition also. He laid great emphasis on the fact that the Counsel for the respondents in the writ petition had been heard before the orders were issued. He invited our attention to the merits of the claim. It is argued that the order dated March 19,1990 must, in the circumstances, be treated to have become final and, therefore, binding on the State and the High court was right in issuing the further direction by way of implementation of earlier order. "the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this judgment has to be read in the context of what the Supreme Court observed in para 3 of the same judgment. It is not in each and every case where a vacate stay petition has been filed and the order of the court is disobeyed that a contempt would not lie, it depends upon the facts of the case and the nature of the order passed by the court. In the case before the Supreme Court the petitioner had been granted final relief by an interim order, in the present case the respondents were directed to maintain status quo, they had not to do anything positive. The Supreme Court in para 3 of the judgment observed;"the direction was not for maintenance of status quo, nor again was it a restraint order on the State authorities forbidding them from taking any step to which the writ petitioner could have an objection. As a result of the interim direction, the writ petitioner was to receive the fruits of the decree (in the language of the learned Counsel for the respondents before us, that is, the writ petitioner) to the extent of half. "therefore, even the Supreme Court exempted application of this judgment to the cases where the order passed by the court is either of a status quo or a restraint order forbidding the respondents from taking any steps to which the petitioner can have objections. The present case is decidedly a case coming within the exceptions made in the judgment. Therefore, the contempt petition cannot be thrown out. The present case is decidedly a case coming within the exceptions made in the judgment. Therefore, the contempt petition cannot be thrown out. ( 3 ) THE petitioner may, if he so chooses, lead the evidence after furnishing a list of documents and names of witnesses to the respondents and to the registry. If such a list is submitted before the Registrar (Judicial) within one week he may summon the witnesses and examine them. After summoning the witnesses and examining them the respondents shall be given a chance to produce evidence in rebuttal. After completion of evidence, the matter be placed again before the Court. However, if the petitioner fails to submit the list of witnesses and documents within the time stipulated, the matter shall be treated to have been closed.