JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner (for short 'the appellate court' hereinafter) in an appeal, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the order dated 02.07.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Nokha (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the learned trial court, while disposing of the application under Order 39, Rule 2A read with section 151 CPC, has sentenced the petitioner for one month's civil imprisonment, holding him guilty for committing the contempt of court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the2 respondent had moved an application under Order 39, Rule 2A read with section 151 CPC, while alleging that on 28.02.1997, on an application for granting temporary injunction, the trial court had restrained the petitioner and two others viz. Ganga and Tulchhi from interfering with the possession of the respondent in respect of a house, but on 22.03.1997, the petitioner Umeda Ram and others had forcibly taken over the possession of his house in violation of the restrained order passed by the trial court. The said application preferred by the respondent came to be allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 12.07.2003 and after concluding that the petitioner is guilty of committing the contempt of court, sentenced him for one month's civil imprisonment. 3. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 12.07.2003 by way of filing an appeal before the learned appellate court, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2008, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner without arguing on the merits of the case has stated that the suit filed by the respondent for permanent injunction against the petitioner and others have already been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2004, and the appeals against the said judgment and decree have also been rejected and the petitioner has already handed over the possession of the property in question to the respondent in pursuance of the said judgment and decree. Photostat copy of the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2004 is placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Photostat copy of the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2004 is placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has also admitted that the possession of the property in question has been handed over to the respondent and the respondent is in possession of the property in question. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the property in question has already been handed over to the respondent, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. He has contended that the petitioner will never violate any of the orders passed by the court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is about 60 years old man and is entitled for sympathetic consideration. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment but has fairly admitted that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars as per direction of the court below. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the possession of the property in question has already been handed over to the respondent by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the age of the petitioner and in view of the assurance given by the learned counsel for the petitioner on his behalf, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.09.2008 and 02.07.2003 are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition Allowed *******