JUDGMENT 1. - The matter has come up on Application No. 22921/2014 dated 19/11/2014 filed u/S. 151 CPC on behalf of the appellant for demolition of the construction raised in violation of the stay order. 2. Contention of the counsel for the appellant is that initially, interim-order has been passed on 04/10/2002 whereby, status-quo was directed to be maintained by all the parties. On 11/11/2005, the appeal has been admitted and the stay was confirmed. Contention of the counsel for the appellant is that respondent No. 2 is raising construction hence, he be restrained from raising further construction and the construction so raised should be demolished. The reply to the said application has been filed by respondent No. 2 and today, additional reply has also been filed and counsel for the appellant has also filed rejoinder. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the application, reply, rejoinder and attached documents. 4. The only contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the interim-order dated 04/10/2002, which has been confirmed vide order dated 11/11/2005 be maintained and the parties be directed to maintain status-quo. The counsel for respondent No. 2 has not denied the fact that he is raising construction but his preliminary objection was that the documents, which are annexed to the application are hand written, not legible hence, typed copy should be supplied to him for which, already on 01/12/2014, the order has been passed. It has been further stated that the file was in the court hence, he could not inspect the file and a reasonable time may be allowed to him. Much has been said that the appeal is pending since 2002, a reasonable time be allowed to them but as all the parties have already been heard, there remains no force in this objection. 5. The other contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 is that the appeal is not maintainable and devoid of merit. Merit of the case also could not be considered in interim-application. Admittedly, the application has been filed for non-compliance of the stay order passed by this Court. 6. 5. The other contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 is that the appeal is not maintainable and devoid of merit. Merit of the case also could not be considered in interim-application. Admittedly, the application has been filed for non-compliance of the stay order passed by this Court. 6. The other contention of the counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that application has been filed after three months of knowledge of the alleged construction and his contention is that first application to Commissioner, J.D.A. has been submitted on 14/08/2014 and, thereafter, some more applications have been filed, which clearly shows that the application is delayed one and contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 is that the delay is intentional and reason has been submitted in reply to the application in para-D that on 20/07/2014, in the co-ordinate bench headed by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Judge that no stay is operating in the matter and he could raise the construction and contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 is that on the opinion of the Judge, respondent No. 2 has started construction and when roster has been changed, malafidely, this application has been filed, whereas earlier, this application could have been filed as the appellant has filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on 26/08/2014 and loudly it has been submitted that due to change of roster, this false application has been submitted. 7. It is not in dispute and admitted by the counsel for respondent No. 2 during the course of arguments that since July 2014, the construction is going on hence, if the application has been delayed one, it has no consequence. If any party is inactive, the other party could not gain benefit from the same. Photographs presented by both the sides clearly speaks that the construction has been raised. A very disgusting plea has been raised by the counsel for respondent No. 2 that co-ordinate bench has given any opinion as regards to stay orders of this Court of 04/10/2002 or 11/11/2005 on 22/07/2014 but order-sheet of the above date speaks nothing except the presence of the parties. An e-mail of the day has also been presented, which has no value in view of the order-sheet of the court. An e-mail of the day has also been presented, which has no value in view of the order-sheet of the court. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that earlier, he was ill not coming to the court and, thereafter, appellant has suffered fracture hence, appropriate application could not be submitted at the earliest and it has also been explained that application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was already ready and submitted on 26/08/2014 during the period of strike by advocates. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also made reference to Rule 64 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 1952, which speaks about application for review but admittedly, here, the application is not for review of the order hence, Rule 64 of the Rules of 1952 provides no assistance to the counsel for respondent No. 2. 9. Further, it has been submitted that no stay is operating against respondent No. 2 and only an order of status-quo has been maintained and counsel for respondent No. 2 himself has submitted that status-quo means - 'existing state of things at any given date' and it has been submitted that status-quo is still maintained. He is owner of the property, he is in possession of the property, he is occupant and residing in the property hence, no status-quo has been changed. The arguments are misconceived. No plea has been raised as regards to above action by the applicant. The contention is pinpointed that constructions have been made in violation of the order of status-quo and when status-quo means -'existing state of things at any given date', the respondent No. 2 was under an obligation not to raise any construction but he is raising the construction. His action and intention both are high handed. Hence, the application deserves to be allowed. 10. It has also been submitted on behalf of respondent No. 2 that he is raising construction with the permission and with approved plan. This is not the issue here that whether respondent No. 2 is raising construction as per the approved plan. The precise question is that whether respondent No. 2 is undertaking construction inspite of the order of status-quo. It has also been submitted on behalf of respondent No. 2 that he is raising construction with the permission and with approved plan. This is not the issue here that whether respondent No. 2 is raising construction as per the approved plan. The precise question is that whether respondent No. 2 is undertaking construction inspite of the order of status-quo. Further, it has been submitted that earlier also, respondent No. 2 has raised construction and he has not started the construction all of a sudden and it has also been stated that other neighbours are also raising the wall and construction is an own-going process. Be that as it may be the case, but the only question is that whether at present, respondent No. 2 is raising construction in violation of the status-quo order and from the contention made in the application, reply and rejoinder and the facts, which have been submitted through documents and photographs, it is abundantly clear that respondent No. 2 is raising construction in violation of the status-quo order. 11. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Meera Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi and another (2007) 12 SCC 201 , where it has been held by the Supreme Court, as under:- "However, it is settled law that the inherent power under Section 151 CPC must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances for which the Code lays down no procedure. At the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order." 12. In view of the above, Application No. 22921/2014 dated 19/11/2014 deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. In view of the above, Application No. 22921/2014 dated 19/11/2014 deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The respondent No. 2 is directed not to raise further construction on the disputed site and he is also directed to demolish the construction, which has been raised in violation of the stay order passed by this Court on 04/10/2002 and confirmed vide order dated 11/11/2005 within 7 days of the order and if respondent No. 2 does not remove the construction within the stipulated time, respondent No. 1-J.D.A. is directed to demolish the construction immediately.Application Allowed. *******