Judgment :- Due to lack of proper and timely legal advice by the counsel concerned, the respondents 3 and 4, the contemners, are facing the contempt proceedings before this Court. The petitioner filed a suit in C.S. No. 943 of 1999 for recovery of Rs. 5,74,83,720/- from the respondents. He also filed an Application No. 4322 of 1999 against the respondents directing them to furnish security to the extent of the suit claim. During the course of argument, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel for the petitioner that there was a news article, which mentioned the proposal to construct a star hotel in the suit property. Therefore, in order to prevent the same pending disposal of the application, this Court by order dated 28-3-2000 directed the respondents to maintain 'status quo'. Subsequently, the said order was extended on 25-4-2000 and ultimately, by order dated 16-6-2000, this Court extended the same until further orders. When the petitioner found in January, 2001 that hectic construction work was going on in the suit property, despite the order of this Court to maintain 'status quo', he filed the present Contempt Application No. 279 of 2001. Entertaining the said Contempt Application, this Court issued notice to respondents 1 to 4 on 27-4-2001. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 stating that in January, 2001, when they came to know of the foundation digging work in the suit land being carried on by respondents 3 and 4, the first respondent wrote a letter to them on 8-1-2001 not to continue the digging work, as it would amount to violation of the orders of this Court and the said letter was received by them on 10-1-2001 and as such, the respondents 1 and 2 have not committed any contempt. This counter affidavit was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 on 27-6-2001. The respondents 3 and 4 filed separate common counter affidavits on 9-7-2001 and 10-7-2001. In these affidavits, the respondents 3 and 4 would specifically state that they were not aware of any order directing the parties to maintain status quo and only on receipt of the contempt notice, they came to know through the present counsel about the status quo order. In these affidavits, the respondents 3 and 4 would specifically state that they were not aware of any order directing the parties to maintain status quo and only on receipt of the contempt notice, they came to know through the present counsel about the status quo order. It is also stated that on verification, it was found that no such status quo order was passed by this Court on 28-3-2000 and the said order had not been served on them. Then, on 16-8-2001, the respondents 3 and 4 filed two different affidavits tendering unconditional apology, since the status quo order passed by this Court had been wrongly understood by the respondents to mean that the company should not alienate the property and therefore, they simply continued the construction. On hearing the counsel for the parties, I feel that the respondents 3 and 4 have not only disobeyed the order passed by this Court directing the parties to maintain status quo, but also took pains to interpret my order through the common counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 running about 25 pages as if no such order had been passed on 28-3-2000 and at any rate, there cannot be any complaint of violation of the said order, as the said order was merged with the final order passed on 8-2-2001. This is nothing, but mis-interpretation. It cannot at all be stated that the respondents 3 and 4 were not aware of the status quo order passed by this Court on 28-3-2000, since the said order was passed during the course of argument advanced by the counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents. As a matter of fact, one Mr. R. Mohan, the erstwhile counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, was present on that date. Furthermore, as stated by the respondents 1 and 2, the respondents 3 and 4 were asked through the letter dated 8-1-2001 not to continue the construction, as the digging of foundation in the suit land would amount to violation of the orders of status quo passed by this Court and the said letter was received on 10-1-2001. There is no denial of the said fact in the common counter-affidavits filed by the respondents 3 and 4 on 9-7-2001 and 10-7-2001. There is no denial of the said fact in the common counter-affidavits filed by the respondents 3 and 4 on 9-7-2001 and 10-7-2001. This shows that the respondents 3 and 4 have not been properly advised by the erstwhile counsel appearing for them explaining the meaning of the status quo order and the consequences of the violation of the said order. To make the matter worse, the detailed counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondents 3 and 4 through the present counsel which would indicate that they have not been made to understand the meaning of the said order and the consequences of the disobedience of the same. On the other hand, through those counter-affidavits, the respondents 3 and 4 would assert that they have not committed any contempt by misinterpreting my order. This is most unfortunate. However, at the intervention of Mr. Ravindran, the senior counsel, who has now been engaged by the present counsel on record appearing for the respondents 3 and 4, the respondents 3 and 4 filed the additional affidavits dated 16-8-2001 tendering unconditional apology for the act that they committed by stating that the order of status quo was wrongly understood by them to mean that the company should not alienate the property. These affidavits would show, at least now, they have realised that the order passed by this Court was not properly understood by them. It is now pointed out that the interim order passed in the suit was taken up to the Division Bench and the same was confirmed with some modification and the said order has been complied with by the respondents. So, under those circumstances, I do not want to punish the contemners, namely, the respondents 3 and 4, as they have realised their act of contempt, at least now, and therefore, they are discharged. Before parting with this case, this Court may take liberty to give a sincere advice to Mr. R. Mohan, the erstwhile counsel and Mr. R. Thyagarajan, the present counsel on record appearing for the respondents 3 and 4, which is given below :- "The clients are entrusting the briefs to you with the hope that their interest would be protected and they would be taken care of by you. Therefore, you shall see that your clients do not land in trouble either on your ill-advice or lack of advice. Therefore, you shall see that your clients do not land in trouble either on your ill-advice or lack of advice. Similarly, you should not forget that you are the Officers of the Court. Both of you shall ensure that this sort of a thing does not occur again." With this advice, the Contempt Application is closed. Order accordingly.