JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiff/respondent No.1 instituted a suit for permanent injunction in the trial Court, wherein it was pleaded that as per the Work Order given by the defendants, the plaintiff has done the work of up-keeping and maintaining erstwhile R.S.E.B. building up-to 20th April, 2002 and thereafter the plaintiff was further assigned the work of up-keeping and maintaining of the building for the period from 10.05.2002 to 20.01.2003, but the defendants are now adamant to give Work Order of up-keeping and maintaining of the building to some another person, therefore, they may be restrained from giving the said Work Order to any other person and further that the amount of the plaintiff may not be withheld. 3. The plaintiff/respondent also filed an application for the temporary injunction, wherein an ex-parte interim stay order was passed by the Lower Court on 30.01.2003, but after filing of reply to the application for temporary injunction an ex-parte inteirm stay order was vacated and the application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 09.04.2003. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred miscellaneous appeal, wherein the First Appellate Court vide order dated 18.04.2003 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 09.04.2003. The plaintiff also filed a contempt petition before the Appellate Court stating therein that in-spite of the stay order passed by the Appellate Court dated 18.04.2003, the defendants have given Work Order to other persons. The First Appellate Court issued a notice of contempt and directed the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to appear in-person in the First Appellate Court. 4. The said order has been challenged by the defendant/petitioners in the present writ petition, along with the order dated 18.04.2003 passed by the First Appellant Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that after rejection of the application for temporary injunction by the learned trial Court on 09.04.2003, the defendant/ petitioners gave Work Order to another person on 10.04.2003, and on that day, there was no interim stay order in favour of the plaintiffs. He contended that the Appellate Court stayed the order of the learned trial Court on 18.04.2003 after granting Work Order to another party, therefore, the Appellate Court committed an illegality in issuing a notice of contempt to the defendants and further committed an illegality in directing the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to remain present inperson in the Court. He contended that the Appellate Court stayed the order of the learned trial Court on 18.04.2003 after granting Work Order to another party, therefore, the Appellate Court committed an illegality in issuing a notice of contempt to the defendants and further committed an illegality in directing the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to remain present inperson in the Court. He further contended that the term of the tender of the plaintiff expired long back i.e. on 10.04.2003. He further submits that the payment of Rs.5,48,648.33p. has already been made to the plaintiff for the Work Order for the period up-to 10.04.2003. He also submits that the security amount deposited by the plaintiff has also been refunded to him on 02.06.2004. He, therefore, contended that the miscellaneous appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the First Appellate Court, arising out of the application for temporary injunction has become infructuous and consequently, the impugned orders be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order of the learned First Appellate Court. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order. 8. On the pleading as well as submissions, referred above, it is clear that an ex-parte interim stay order maintaining status-quo dated 30.01.2003 was vacated and the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court on 09.04.2003. The fresh Work Order was given by the defendants on 10.04.2003 and on that day, there was no stay order. The Appellate Court passed the stay order on 18.04.2003, whereas the Work Order to the another person had already been given on 10.04.2003 much before passing of the impugned order dated 18.04.2003 by the Appellate Court, therefore, the Appellate Court was not justified in issuing notice of contempt without considering the aforesaid fact that before 18.04.2003, the Work Order had already been given by the defendants to the different person. 9. 9. In these circumstances, I find that there was no deliberate disobedience of the order of the Appellate Court dated 18.04.2003 and the Appellate Court committed an illegality in issuing notice of contempt to the defendants and further in directing the Chairmancum- Managing Director of the defendant/company to appear inperson, I further find that the term of the contract has already come to an end, the due payment of the plaintiff has already been made and his security deposit has also been refunded way back in the year, 2004. In these circumstances the miscellaneous appeal, arising out of the application for the temporary injunction has become infructuous and the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 18.04.2003 is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.04.2003 passed by the Appellate Court is set aside and further orders passed by the Appellate Court issuing notice of contempt etc., are also set aside.There will be no order as to costs.Writ petition allowed. *******