Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—Present Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants original plaintiffs to quash and set aside impugned order dated 24.6.2009 passed below Exh. 45 in Civil Suit No. 350 of 2004 by the learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in so far as observation made in Para 8 of the impugned order is concerned. 2. In an application for breach of injunction under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure while disposing of the said application at Exh. 45 the learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge in Para 8 has observed and held as under: “8. -Considering the ratio of above cited authority case, provision of Order 39, Rule2-A, is not for the punishment but the said is for enforcing injunction order. The case in my hand, defendant trustees are using premises for other than approved plan and as say of the defendant that they are under that impression that under the provisions of GDCR they have right to use the disputed premises for party plot, marriage ceremonies and for reception purpose but as per my above discussion, GDCR provisions are very clear that common plot of the society should be used for marriage, birth day party, reception etc. only by the registered member of the society and not for outsiders. Documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff as discussed above are clearly shows that common plot is not being used by the member but outsider. So, in my view, plaintiff has established that defendant No. 2 to 7 are using suit premises against the approved plans, as per my above discussion, plain is approved for basement for parking and 1st and 3rd floor for dormitory purpose and not for the marriage ceremony or any other party. As per my above discussion according to the provisions of GDCR member of the society can use suit property for marriage ceremonies, reception and other parties but outsider has no right to use it with or without charges. In the instant case, defendant No. 2 to 7 have tendered unconditional apology and they have also given undertaking in their reply at Exh.60 in Par.10 that even not to give the plot in future to any person outsider who is not the member of the Society. In the instant case, defendant No. 2 to 7 have tendered unconditional apology and they have also given undertaking in their reply at Exh.60 in Par.10 that even not to give the plot in future to any person outsider who is not the member of the Society. So, considering this undertaking and unconditional apology tendered by trustees of defendant No. 1 and said are required to be accepted by this Court and therefore, defendants are not punished for the act of violation of injunction order and hence following order is passed”. 3. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants that the observation made by the learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge is on an wrong interpretation of provision of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further submitted that even the observation made by the learned Judge that as per the provision of GDCR member of the society can use the suit property for marriage ceremony, reception and other purpose are also contrary to the provision of the GDCR and the plan sanctioned by the Corporation. Shri Pancholi, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that as such disputed plot in question is not of the ownership of the society and, therefore, there is no question of using the said upon plot by members of the society for marriage ceremony, reception and other purpose. It is submitted that as such plot belongs to trust. It is submitted that when earlier an injunction was granted by the learned trial Court while disposing of the Notice of Motion that the defendants are directed to maintain status quo and use the plot in question only as per the plan sanctioned by the corporation, it is not open for trust and / or its trustees to use the disputed plot for the purpose other than permissible under the sanction plan. 4. Shri K.B. Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared with Shri R.S. Sanjanwala, learned advocate for the trust as well as its trustees and Shri R.M. Chhaya, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Corporation. Shri Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has fairly conceded that the observation of the learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge on interpretation of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be sustained. Shri Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has fairly conceded that the observation of the learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge on interpretation of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be sustained. It is also further submitted that the defendants have no objection in quashing and setting aside the observation of the learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge made in Para 8 of the impugned order. It is submitted that defendants have tendered affidavits cum undertaking to the effect that till final hearing and disposal of the suit filed by the appellants original plaintiff, the trust and its trustees shall not permit use of the open plot of the trust by its member or any other persons for marriages or marriage related functions or birthday parties. However, it is requested that a suitable observation be made directing the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and on merits without in any way being influenced by any of the observation made while passing impugned order below Exh. 5 as well as present order. It is submitted that aforesaid undertaking has been given by the trust without prejudice to the rights and contention of the trust and its trustees in the main suit. Learned Advocates for the respective parties do not invite any further reasoned order. 5. In view of the above and more particularly, the affidavits cum undertaking of the Respondent No. 1, which are directed to be taken on record, Respondent No. 1 herein and its trusties are hereby restrained from permitting to use of the open land of the trust by its members and / or any other person(s) for marriages or marriage related function or birthday parties in any manner whatsoever, however same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties to the suit. The observation made by the learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge in Para 8 of the impugned order to the effect that - provision of Order 39 Rule 2-A is not for the punishment but the said is enforcing the injunction order - is hereby quashed and set aside as even otherwise same cannot be sustained on considering the provision of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even the observation made by the learned Auxiliary Chamber Judge in Para 8 of the impugned order to the effect that - according to the provision of GDCR, member of the society can use the suit property for marriage ceremony and reception and other purpose - is also hereby quashed and set aside. Respective defendants are directed to act as stated above, more particularly as per their affidavits cum undertakings (two in members) dated 7.10.2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the hearing of the suit and try to see that the suit is decided and disposed of on or before 31.12.2010. All concerned are directed to cooperate the learned trial Court in early disposal of the suit. It goes without saying that the learned trial Court shall decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and on merits without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made while deciding application Exh. 45 as well present order. With these, present Appeal from Order is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. In view of allowing the Appeal from Order, no order in Civil Application.