JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an application for recalling of an order dated March 24, 2010 passed by this Court in CPAN No. 003 of 2009. 2. IN a partition suit, an injunction application was moved. The learned Trial Judge rejected the said application for temporary injunction. 3. THE lower Appellate Court, however, passed an order, inter alia, directing maintenance of status quo. 4. AGAINST the said order passed by the lower Appellate Court, an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was moved before this Court. This Court, by judgment and order dated September 29, 2001, disposed of the revisional application, inter alia, clarifying that the order of status quo passed by the lower Appellate Court would not prevent the defenants to complete the construction, but, after completion of the construction, they would not deal with or dispose of or encumber the property in any manner whatsoever without express leave of the Trial Court. This application for contempt is filed alleging, inter alia, that, in clear violation of the order passed by this Court, the defendants had let out several portions of the suit property to the outsiders. 5. THE contempt application was listed before this Court on March 24, 2010; this Court, inter alia, observed that the order that might be passed in the application for contempt was likely to affect persons, who were allegedly in occupation of the suit property and, therefore, those persons should be added to the contempt proceedings as respondents. 6. THIS application for recalling the said order dated March 24, 2010 is filed contending that it is not necessary to add the persons to whom the defendants had let out the, portions of the suit property. Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Advocate appearing in support of this application for recalling, draws my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Surjit Singh and Ors. vs. Harbans Singh and Ors., reported in 1996(6) SCC 50. 7. THE Supreme Court of India in Surjit Singh (supra) holds that when the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. 7. THE Supreme Court of India in Surjit Singh (supra) holds that when the Court intends a particular state of affairs to exist while it is in seisin of a lis, that state of affairs is not only required to be maintained, but it is presumed to exist till the Court orders otherwise. THE Court, in these circumstances, has the duty, as also the right, to treat the alienation/ assignment as having not taken place at all for its purposes. Therefore, the assignees could not have been impleaded by the Court as parties. 8. I, therefore, recall the order dated March 24, 2010. The direction to implead the assignees or transferees in this application for contempt is recalled. The application for recalling stands allowed. 9. PUT up this application for contempt before the next Circuit Bench subject, however, to the convenience of the Hon'ble Judge. I make no order as to costs.