JUDGMENT K. J. Sengupta, A.C.J. 1. This application has been taken out by the petitioner for drawing up contempt proceedings alleging deliberate violation of the orders dated 24th February, 2011 and 20th of May, 2011 passed by this Court. 2. The relevant facts for which the aforesaid contempt proceedings is sought to be initiated are shortly put hereunder:- 3. In terms of the Area Assignment Agreement dated 23rd March, 2007 between the petitioner, first respondent and one M/s. Presidium Construction Company Private Limited wherein the respondent being a party was put in possession on or about 16th April, 2007. As such the said land in question was under its possession and control to the exclusion of all respondents for the purpose of carrying, executing the works in terms of the development agreement. After obtaining possession the petitioner started various works which are preliminary in nature to commence actual work of erection and construction, such as levelling of the land, soil testing and other initial steps required before erection of permanent structures thereon. The petitioner also appointed reputed Architect for starting construction. Various reasons for which the petitioner was not at fault construction work could not be started the respondent No.1 raising frivolous dispute, alleging nonperformance of the contract terminated the said agreement. Immediate after taking possession the petitioner deployed the security agency for protection of the property. As there has been dispute the petitioner on or about May 18, 2010 filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for obtaining prohibitory order of injunction. The Chief Judge of City Civil Court has passed an order on 9th June, 2010 restraining the respondents dispossessing the petitioner from its possession and occupation of the said property in any manner till 21st of June, 2010 on Miscellaneous application filed subsequent to filing application under Section 9. Thereafter, the said original application under Section 9 together with the said Miscellaneous Application came up for hearing and both the applications were dismissed by order dated 2nd February, 2011 and interim order passed was vacated on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal an appeal was preferred in this Hon’ble Court and necessary interlocutory application was made in the said appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal an appeal was preferred in this Hon’ble Court and necessary interlocutory application was made in the said appeal. The Appeal Court by an order dated February 24, 2011 admitted the appeal for hearing and passed an order of status quo as regard possession as on the date of admission to be maintained by both the parties. The Appeal Court clarified the said order of status quo, that if the petitioner was in possession it would continue with such possession, on the other hand if the respondent was in possession respondent would retain the same and it would not part with possession in favour of the third party. The said interim order was directed to continue for a period of three months or until further orders whichever is earlier. It is claimed in the petition that since April 16, 2007 the petitioner has been and still is in exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted possession over and in respect of the said land. The petitioner purchased construction materials and stored the same in the godown constructed at the site land and such materials were partly kept by the petitioner at the site itself. The petitioner caused insurance to be taken out with an Insurance Company in respect of the construction and the on going progress of the construction of the said land. Basing on those documents the petitioner wants to assert that the petitioner had and still has been in exclusive possession as such the protective order of status quo was bound to operate in favour of the petitioner. 5. It is alleged that in spite of order of status quo the respondents were trying to create disturbance at or hinder, impede and obstruct the exclusive and peaceful possession of the petitioner over and in respect of the said land. Such factum of disturbance recorded in the written complaint dated 20th of May, 2010 to B-6 Police Station, Peelamedu and Police Station, Coimbatore. Pursuant to the said complaint the police intervened in the matter and on behalf of the first respondent an undertaking was taken in writing that order of the Court would be carried out. 6. Such factum of disturbance recorded in the written complaint dated 20th of May, 2010 to B-6 Police Station, Peelamedu and Police Station, Coimbatore. Pursuant to the said complaint the police intervened in the matter and on behalf of the first respondent an undertaking was taken in writing that order of the Court would be carried out. 6. Despite the order of status quo dated 24th February 2011 the respondents in deliberate violation thereof with the help of local antisocial and hooligans on May 6, 2011 entered in the said land and structure and criminally trespassed on the land and tried to get possession thereof forcibly and coercively. The respondents and each of them with the help of local anti socials and hooligans threatened the security personnel of the petitioner who were post at the said land with dire consequences if they did not leave the said land, and snatched away the visitors book maintained by the security agency at the said site. The aforesaid factum of disturbance and illegal attempt to dispossess the petitioner has been reiterated in a complaint lodged with the local police station on May 8, 2011. Thereafter an application was made in the pending appeal alleging that there was a serious breach of order of status quo dated 24th April, 2011 by the respondents by the act of criminal trespassing and other wrongful acts to disturb the possession. On hearing the said application the Appeal Court passed an order appointing Special Officer with direction to visit the site in question and to submit a report with photographs stating who was and still is in possession. Even after passing of the order dated 20th May, 2011 respondents again wrongfully and illegally tried to disturb and to make forcible entry in the said site. The Special Officer visited the said site and submitted a report. In his report he found that there were 75 bags of cement belonged to the petitioner stored by it, by which it is proved that petitioner has been in possession. In the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent No.1 has admitted the factum of Assignment Agreement and even factum of putting the petitioner in possession in the suit property. It is admitted that by a letter dated 16th April, 2007 the petitioner was put in possession. In the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent No.1 has admitted the factum of Assignment Agreement and even factum of putting the petitioner in possession in the suit property. It is admitted that by a letter dated 16th April, 2007 the petitioner was put in possession. Since the construction was not done in terms of the agreement the said licence was revoked and development agreement on 29th April, 2010 was terminated. It is said that since no construction work was started and when agreement was terminated and licence was revoked the petitioner has no right to remain in possession not it was not in possession. It is stated specifically in paragraph 26 that the respondents are the owners of the property and they have in possession at all times whether before or after the termination of licence dated 15th April, 2007. The petitioner was never in possession, as such there has been no violation of the orders dated 24th February, 2011 and 20th May, 2011. The other allegations have been denied with emphasis. 7. On receipt of the said contempt application having regard to the nature of the allegation made this Court did not drop the contempt proceedings and affidavits were invited. It was the idea of the Court that after considering the pleading of the parties the Court might proceed with or drop contempt proceedings. Now the matter is being heard on affidavits. 8. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Advocate while appearing in support of the petitioner submits that it will appear from the documents annexed to the petition and supported by the report of the Special Officer it is established that the petitioners had and still has been in possession. In fact the finding of the Special Officer that his client was in possession was challenged unsuccessfully. According to him the fact finding of this Special Officer is binding. When the factum of possession is established by the aforesaid materials the act of dispossession and forcible entry into the possession is also established by contemporaneous document namely complaint lodged with the Police Station and also the security agency deployed. He contends on the proposition of law that when order of status quo was passed there was no adjudication with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court. He contends on the proposition of law that when order of status quo was passed there was no adjudication with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court. Till issue of jurisdiction decided the order passed prior thereto was valid and subsisting and so long it is not decided it has to be obeyed by all concerned. In support of his contention he has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1997) 3 SCC 443 , 1994 Supp (2) SCC 641 and (1998) 5 SCC 310 , thus it is a fit case where contempt proceedings should be drawn up. 9. Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Saraf on the other hand placing his client’s averment and statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition submits that there is no document to show that the petitioner was even in possession and as matter of fact could not be in possession after termination of licence. According to him the documents annexed to this petition are used to create an impression of factum of possession the Court cannot rely on the same. He contends that report of the Special Officer is not conclusive and it merely records that 75 bags of cement belong to the petitioner and the same have been lying in the said premises. By this fact itself this Court cannot come to conclusion that petitioner has been in possession and as such protective umbrella of status quo order passed by this Court has no force. He further submits that having been unsuccessful in the appeal before this Court the petitioner has made desperate attempt by filing this contempt application, to achieve which he could not do it directly. He does not dispute the legal proposition that so long the question of jurisdiction is not decided any interim order passed prior thereto is valid and subsisting. However once it is decided the Court has no jurisdiction an order passed prior thereto will automatically stand discharged. Even in spite of granting leave to the petitioner for bringing action afresh before appropriate court no step has been taken. On the contrary his client has filed application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the appropriate Court, at Coimbatore and the same is pending and the petitioner is contesting thereat. Even in spite of granting leave to the petitioner for bringing action afresh before appropriate court no step has been taken. On the contrary his client has filed application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the appropriate Court, at Coimbatore and the same is pending and the petitioner is contesting thereat. The dispute has been referred to the learned Arbitrator, adjudication before his is still pending. 10. He submits that there has been no breach of order of status quo at all. Mr. Banerjee however reminded the Court while relying on the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1958 Calcutta 474 that in which cases the contempt proceeding should be drawn up. According to him in the facts and circumstances of this case no contempt proceeding can be drawn up his remedy is to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Code. This proposition of law has been, he asserts, laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Food Corporation of India vs. Sukh Deo Prasad reported in (2009) 5 SCC 665 . According to him in that case Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines where Court will proceed to initiate contempt proceedings and to pass order of punishment. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in this case we are now to decide whether there has been a prima facie case for drawing up contempt proceeding or not. This application has been admittedly made alleging violation of the order of status quo passed by this Court on 24th of February, 2011. We therefore set out the relevant portion of the said order: “Status quo, as of today, shall be maintained by the parties. We clarify that Mr. Mitra’s client is in possession, he will continue with such possession. In the event, before passing of this order viz. till yesterday, the possession is with Mr. Saraf’s client, such possession shall be retained by him and he will not part with the possession in favour of any third party……” 12. On reading of the particulars of act of contempt in the petition it appears that attempt was made to breach the order of status quo and the respondents were not successful to get entry in the said land dispossessing the petitioner and the same was resisted by taking appropriate steps. On reading of the particulars of act of contempt in the petition it appears that attempt was made to breach the order of status quo and the respondents were not successful to get entry in the said land dispossessing the petitioner and the same was resisted by taking appropriate steps. It is admitted position in the application. Report of the Special Officer shows that the cement bags belonged to the petitioner was lying in the said place. In this context the Special Officer was of the view this is an indicative of the petitioner’s possession. The petitioner’s possession was not admitted rather it is seriously disputed by the respondent. According to us it was the perception of the Special Officer the presence of the cement bag was an indication of petitioner’s possession. According to us the Special Officer at that point of time did not have enough materials to conclude finally and it was what he has seen and came to conclusion in his own way. Before the Special Officer both the parties did not make any statement on oath. Now from the affidavit we have received the statement of the respective parties. In the affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 26 the respondent has specifically stated as follows:- “The petitioner was not in possession when such orders were passed. The respondents are the owners of the property and they have in possession at all times whether before or after the termination of licence dated 15th April, 2007. The petitioner was never in possession……..” 13. However the aforesaid statement has been denied by necessary implication. It appears that after the said order of status quo was passed and complaint and counter complaint having been lodged under the instruction of the police both the parties have put padlocks on the gate. In the aforesaid background of the case we do not think it is a complete case of breach of order of status quo. In course of argument learned counsel for the respondent admitted that cement bags are still lying there and it is also admitted that cement bags belonged to the petitioner. 14. After the order of status quo was passed by this Court the Special Officer found that cements were lying. We fail to understand how this order of status quo was breached. 14. After the order of status quo was passed by this Court the Special Officer found that cements were lying. We fail to understand how this order of status quo was breached. Even going by the petitioner version there was an attempt to breach however the same was resisted and appropriate criminal proceeding was initiated. The cement bags were not thrown out and both parties put their padlocks. Therefore the respondent ready to maintain order of status quo. Even after disposal of the appeal the said cement bags are lying there. 15. In the case of Dulal Chandra Bhar and others, appellant vs. Sukumar Banerjee and others reported in AIR 1958 Calcutta 474 the Division Bench of this Court has laid down that what is the duty of the Court before contempt proceeding is drawn up. In this case paragraph 20 of the said report is very useful. We cannot just restrain our temptation from reproducing the same. “The jurisdiction in contempt is a very special jurisdiction and is certainly a jurisdiction which it is necessary for the superior court to have and exercise whenever it is found that something has been done which tends to affect the administration of justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to affect public confidence in the ability of the courts to enforce their orders. At the same time, it is a jurisdiction of a drastic character and its very usefulness depends on the restraint with which it is used and on the refusal of the Courts to use it except when they find that, in addition to failure to comply with their orders which may be punished under the ordinary laws obstruction has been caused to their primary function of administering justice as authorities charged with that function. While it is necessary to exercise the jurisdiction in contempt on proper occasions, it is of equal importance that the integrity of the proceedings in contempt ought to be maintained by taking the utmost care that it is not used on occasions or in cases to which it is not appropriate.” 16. We have already discussed and came to the conclusion that it is not clear case of drawing up contempt proceeding and attempt was made to breach the status as regard possession of the parties as such act of contempt was prevented by the resistance of the respondents. We have already discussed and came to the conclusion that it is not clear case of drawing up contempt proceeding and attempt was made to breach the status as regard possession of the parties as such act of contempt was prevented by the resistance of the respondents. According to us mere attempt to violate order is not enough to draw up contempt proceeding which is drastic in nature and which entails civil and evil consequences. The authority cited by Mr. Mitra is not required to be discussed as Mr. Banerjee does not dispute the proposition the enforceability of the order passed by this Court before issue of jurisdiction was decided. 17. In view of the discussion we do not find any reason to proceed with contempt proceeding. The application is disposed of recording and observing that the materials which have been produced and placed by both the parties before us are to be examined and scrutinized by the appropriate Court where the matter is pending for adjudication on the question of factum of possession. Our decision will not be binding or influencing factor in any proceeding if it is drawn up already or in future. Issue of possession as claimed and counter claimed by both the parties is kept open. 18. There will be no order as to costs. Asim Kumar Mondal, J.: I agree.