JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. During the pendency of the apposite suit before the learned trial Court, an application stood preferred there before under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. by the plaintiff/respondent herein wherein a prayer stood ventilated qua the defendant/petitioner herein during the pendency of the suit standing restrained from raising construction upon the suit land. 2. On the learned trial Court standing seized with the aforesaid application it on 3.5.2004 pronounced thereupon an order of ad interim injunction vis-a-vis suit land and upon the rival contestants thereat whereupon each of the parties to the lis was directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land. The aforesaid order remained alive besides held force up to 21.12.2004. A thorough rummaging of the record discloses qua thereafter up till 4th August, 2004, the Presiding Officer of the learned trial Court proceeding on leave. On 9.12.2004 whereat the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC stood listed for consideration thereat he ordered for extension of the order of status quo as stood pronounced earlier on 3.5.2004. The defendants after 3.5.2004 purportedly willfully violated the orders of status quo qua the suit property whereupon the plaintiff-applicant through an application moved by him under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. motioned the learned trial Court wherein he prayed for punitive action under the aforesaid provisions being ordered to be taken against the defendant/petitioner herein. 3. The learned trial Court, after striking issues on the pleadings of the parties and also after its permitting them to adduce their respective evidence thereon, on its appraising the relevant evidences adduced respectively by them on each of the issue whereupon onus stood cast upon them pronounced the impugned order whereupon it recorded a conclusion of the defendant/petitioner intentionally besides deliberately violating the order of status quo pronounced vis-avis suit land on 3.5.2004. 4. 4. Without alluding to the propriety or impropriety of the learned trial Court in its properly appraising or misappraising the evidences as stood adduced there before by the relevant parties on the issues, onus whereof stood cast upon them, the imminent fact which starkly appears to remain slighted by the learned Court below is comprised in the factum of prior to the learned trial Court proceeding to pronounce the impugned rendition both the contesting parties on 29.8.2006 through their respective counsel recording their statements before the learned trial Court wherein they portrayed their no objection for a direction being rendered upon the litigants thereat qua theirs till the final disposal of the main suit maintaining status quo qua the nature, possession and construction upon the suit land. The import of the aforesaid rendition is thereupon, the applicant/plaintiff/respondent herein acquiescing qua thereafter alone the parties being directed to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession and construction, if any, raised upon the suit land by the defendants, even after the pronouncement recorded by the learned trial Court on 3.5.2004 whereby it had restrained the contesting partys to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit land conspicuously also with apparently the aforesaid pronouncement recorded on 29.8.2006 holding prospectivity in operation also thereupon warrants erection of an inference qua the construction activity, if any, raised upon the suit land by the purported violators/defendants/petitioner herein arising from his purportedly disobeying the orders pronounced by the learned trial court on 3.5.2004, standing also acquiesced by the plaintiff/applicant to be the status of the suit land existing on 29.8.2006 with respect whereof the counsel appearing for the respective contestants before the learned trial Court consensually agreed there before qua the aforesaid status of the suit property which existed thereat standing alone pronounced to be maintained in future by the parties to the lis. The effect of the aforesaid acquiescence of the plaintiff/applicant/respondent herein qua any construction if any raised upon the suit land by the defendant/petitioner herein in purported disobedience of the orders of the learned trial Court whereupon the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua nature, possession and construction existing upon the suit land thereat also tantamounting to the plaintiff/applicant also abandoning besides waiving his rights, if any, which accrued in his favour arising from disobedience, if any, occurring at the instance of the defendants/petitioner vis-a-vis the order pronounced by the learned trial Court on 3.05.2004. The effect of aforesaid slighting by the learned trial Court the aforesaid order recorded on 3.05.2004, significantly when it stood pronounced by the learned trial Court prior to its recording its rendition on the application moved there before under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. by the aggrieved plaintiff, has caused gross hardship and injustice to the defendants/petitioner herein also thereupon the rendition of the learned trial Court besides the rendition of the learned Appellate Court in affirmation thereto stand permeated with an inherent deep stain of theirs mis-appraising besides not appraising the aforesaid rendition of 29.8.2006. In sequel thereto, the impugned order suffers from an inherent defect of its standing ingrained with a gross illegality besides impropriety whereupon this Court is constrained to quash it. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned orders rendered on 18.05.2011 in CMA No.153 of 2004 and affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 24/2011RBT No. 01/13 are quashed and set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of.