JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The learned counsel for the petitioner, has, restricted, (i) his challenge, to the impugned affirmative order, recorded, by the learned District Judge (I) Mandi, H.P., upon, Civil Misc. Appeal No. 13/2016, as instituted therebefore, (ii) against, the disaffirmative orders pronounced by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., upon an application, cast under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, (iii) only, visavis, the observations, made by the learned appellate Court, in, the order under challenge before this Court, and, as occur in paragraph8, being ordered be not borne in mind, by, the learned Court, of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., on, his receiving the lis, on remand. This Court, has, considered the aforesaid submissions, and, finds merit therein, whereupon the apt observations, extracted hereinafter: "In the light of aforesaid rival contention raised before this Court by Ld. Counsel for the parties, I have perused the case file with care and find merit and force in the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the appellant and find no merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the respondent. From the close scrutiny of the record of the case file reveals that in a appeal titled as Karor Chand Katoch vs. Nirmala Katoch etc. filed in the court of Additional District Judge Mandi, H.P. who vide order dated 15.3.2013 in a CMP No. 17 of 2012 titled as Nirmala Katoch vs. Karor Chand Katoch arising out of the CMA No. 21 VI of 2012 dated 3.9.2012 has directed the parties to maintain the status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit property consisting land and structure comprised in khewat No. 108, khatauni No. 185 khasra No. 2968 measuring 1036 Sq. Mtrs, situated in muhal Sundernagar, 26/8, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. Respondent No.1 Smt. Nirmala Katoch wilfully disobeyed the above status qua order parted with the part of the suit land i.e. one shop on the ground floor on dated 11.8.2014 by renting out the same to the same to the bank of India Mandi town, Distt Mandi, H.P. for installing ATM. Respondent No.2 is a Manager of the bank of India branch Mandi H.P. and is also responsible for conducting the business of bank and ATM in the suit premises. Respondent No.2 is a Manager of the bank of India branch Mandi H.P. and is also responsible for conducting the business of bank and ATM in the suit premises. Status quo order has been specifically brought to the notice of respondent No.2 vide representation in writing dated 11.8.2014. He has been specifically requested not to violate the above order of the court i.e. by taking on rent of the suit premises and installing the ATM thereon. But respondent No.2 appears to be hand in glove with the respodnent No.1 and has ignored his request. As such, the above acts, omissions and commission of the respondents amounts to deliberate and willful disobedience and breach of the above status quo order dated 15.3.2013. Order of the ld. Addl. District Judge, Mandi dated 15.3.2013 is enclosed with the appeal. On its scrutiny, its relief clause reveals that in view of the finding given on point No.1 above, appeal is ordered to be allowed and impugned order dated 3.9.2012 passed by ld. Trial court is set aside and application is ordered to be allowed to the extent that both the parties to the application will maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit property as it exists at the time of filing the suit and application till disposal of the suit on merits. Application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC filed on the basis of said order is dismissed by the ld. Court below i.e. without giving any opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties on merits i.e. against the settled principle of law. In view of the aforesaid position of the matter, I think it appropriate to remand the present application to the ld. Court below to decide afresh by giving opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence and decide the same on merit. So order passed by ld. Court below is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law, which requires interference of this Court. Hence this point is decided in negative." ARE (i) given theirs'' ultimately presenting, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. So order passed by ld. Court below is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law, which requires interference of this Court. Hence this point is decided in negative." ARE (i) given theirs'' ultimately presenting, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), with a fait accompli, are, thereupon ordered to be not borne in mind by the remandee Court (ii) conspicuously for obviating the afore illconsequences, which may hence rather ensue, (iii) thereupon reiteratedly, the aforestated extracted findings, are directed to be not borne in mind, by the learned Civil Judge, while making his decision, upon, CMP193VI of 2014. 2. In view of the above observations, the instant petition stands disposed, of, alongwith all pending applications, if any. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court, on 5.9.2018. 3. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made herein above. Dasti copy.