ORDER 1. This contempt petition has been registered in pursuance to the reference which has been sent by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareli District Raisen in pursuance to an application filed by Yashpal Singh Raghuvanshi who made an application under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the nonapplicants have violated the decree of the Court dated 11.7.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.27-A/2018 wherein conditions No.5 and 6 of the decree have been violated. In pursuance to the said application, MJC No.12/2019 was registered and the matter proceeded for enquiry. On notice being issued, the statement of the parties and witnesses have been recorded and documentary evidence was produced before the Court. The said MJC was finally decided on 9.5.2020 and the finding was recorded that the non-applicants have violated the decree dated 11.7.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.27-A/2018 by removing the (Dan Patra) donation box from Shri Ram Janki Hanuman Mandir Private Trust, village Chhind and putting an open Dan Patra (Thal) in place of a locked one. The non-applicants have also fixed a flex on which it was written that Shri Ram Janki Hanuman Mandir Trust village Chhind Niji Trust is a private property and the management of the Trust will not accept the interference of an outsider. It is further pointed out that in para 61 of the order dated 9.5.2020 passed in MJC No.12/2019, the applicants have violated the conditions No.5 and 6 of the decree. 2. As per the reference, it is pointed out that the non-applicants have violated the decree of the Court which amounts to civil contempt. It is further pointed out that the non-applicant Krishna Kumar has sent a complaint against the Presiding Officer i.e. Shri S.P.S. Bundela, Additional District Judge, Bareli alleging misuse of his office and indulging in corrupt practices and arbitrary use of powers. The matter was enquired into when a reference for registration of criminal contempt was also made which was separately registered. A detailed order has been passed in a criminal contempt registered at Concr. No.05 of 2020. The matter was placed for consideration before the Portfolio Judge as well as the Hon’ble Chief Justice and thereafter civil contempt was registered. 3. On notice being issued to the respondents/contemnors, a detailed reply has been filed by them pointing out several factual situations. A detailed order has been passed in a criminal contempt registered at Concr. No.05 of 2020. The matter was placed for consideration before the Portfolio Judge as well as the Hon’ble Chief Justice and thereafter civil contempt was registered. 3. On notice being issued to the respondents/contemnors, a detailed reply has been filed by them pointing out several factual situations. It is pointed out that against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, a second appeal has been filed being Second Appeal No.2046 of 2019 wherein vide order dated 30.7.2019 there was a direction for staying the execution of the judgment and decree which was filed along with the MJC before the learned Trial Court. The second appeal is still pending before this Court. Therefore, once the judgment and decree passed by the Court has already been stayed no contempt is made out against the respondents. However, he tenders his unconditional apology before this Court, in case it is found that the judgment and decree has been violated. The second appeal is still pending before this Court. Therefore, once the judgment and decree passed by the Court has already been stayed no contempt is made out against the respondents. However, he tenders his unconditional apology before this Court, in case it is found that the judgment and decree has been violated. Para 40 of the Contempt reference made by the learned Trial Court reads as under: ^^40- bl Ádkj ;g Li"V gS fd vukosndx.k ds }kjk Jhjke tkudh guqeku eafnj futh VªLV xzke Nhan esa J)kyqvksa }kjk vfiZr dh tkus okyh pढ+kok jkf'k ls lacaf/kr lhycan nkui= eafnj Ákax.k ls gVk;s rFkk J)kyqvksa }kjk vfiZr dh tkus okyh pढ+kok jkf'k [kqys nkui=ksa@crZuksa esa O;fDrxr mi;ksx gsr ,df=r dj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds Mrinalini Padhi vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 649/2018 esa fnukad 5-7-2018 dks ikfjr vkns'k dh df.Mdk&09 ,oa df.Mdk&10 esa fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa ,oa bl U;k;ky; }kjk fu;fer O;ogkj vihy Øekad 27,@18 esa fnukad 11-07-2019 dks ikfjr vkns'k] fMØh esa fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa dh tkucw>dj ?kksj vogsyuk dj U;k; psruk] vkLFkk vkSj fo'okl dks Bsl igqapkdj flfoy voekuuk dkfjr dh rFkk vukosnd d`".k dqekj j?kqoa'kh ds }kjk fu;fer O;ogkj vihy Øekad 27,@18 esa fnukad 11-7-2019 dks vkns'k ?kksf"kr gksus ds mijkar fnukad 15-7-2019 dks vkVhZdy ,&04 dh uksV'khV ,oa vkVhZdy ,&05 dh f'kdk;r dks lks'ky ehfM;k ¼OgkV~lvi½ ij bl U;k;ky; ds Ákf/kdkCij ykaNu yxkus ,oa U;kf;d dk;Zokgh ds lE;d~ vuqØe esa Áfrdwy ÁHkko Mkyus rFkk U;kf;d Á'kklu esa vM+pu iSnk djus ds vk'k; ls tkucw>dj Álkfjr dj nkf.Md voeku dkfjr fd;k x;kA blfy, U;k;fgr esa lehphu gksus ls U;k;ky; voeku vf/kfu;e] 1971 ds rgr~ ;g jsQjsUl lknj Ásf"kr gSA vukosndx.k@voekudrkZx.k dk d`R; tkucw>dj dh x;h U;k;ky; dh voekuuk dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS vkSj n.Muh; vijk/k gSA** 4. The judgment and decree dated 11.7.2019 is stated to be violated. The judgment and decree dated 11.7.2019 is stated to be violated. The judgment and decree has been put to challenge by filing a second appeal being second Appeal No.2046 of 2019 wherein vide order dated 30.7.2019, the execution of the judgment and decree was stayed by the second Appellate Court which is as under: “In the meantime, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree in respect of the conditions imposed by the appellate Court shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.” The conditions No.5 and 6 stated to be violated/disobeyed have been stayed by this Court in Second Appeal No.2046 of 2019 which reads as under: ^^05- Jh jketkudh guqeku eafnj futh VªLV xzke Nhan esa J)kyqvksa }kjk vfiZr dh tkus okyh p ढ+kok jkf'k ls lacaf/kr leLr nkui= lhy can j[ks tk;saxs] mijksDr nkui= ekg esa ,d ckj vihykFkhZ] ÁR;FkhZ Øekad 1 ,oa ljiap xzke iapk;r NqNkj ,oa nks iap xzke iapk;r NqNkj rFkk vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼iqfyl½ rglhy cjsyh ftyk jk;lsu dh mifLFkfr esa [kksys tk,axs ÁkIr p ढ+kok jkf'k dk mYys[k lacaf/kr iath esa fd;k tk,xk] lacafèkr iath ij vihykFkhZ] ÁR;FkhZ Øekad 1 ,oa ljiap xzke iapk;r NqNkj ,oa nks iap xzke iapk;r NqNkj rFkk vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼iqfyl½ rglhy cjsyh ftyk jk;lsu gLrk{kj djsaxs] mDr jkf'k vkxkeh dk;Zfnol ij Jh jketkudh guqeku eafnj futh VªLV xzke Nhan ds uke la/kkfjr [kkrs esa tek dh tk;sxh] nkui= vihykFkhZ] ÁR;FkhZ Áekad 01 ,oa ljiap xzke iapk;r NqNkj ,oa nks iap xzke iapk;r NqNkj rFkk vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼iqfyl½ rglhy cjsyh ftyk jk;lsu dh mifLFkfr esa lhycan fd;s tk,axsA 06- Jh jketkudh guqeku eafnj futh VªLV xzke Nhan ls ÁkIr vk; loZÁFke Hkxoku dh iwtk&ikB] /kkfeZd vuq"Bku] Hkxoku ds oL=] iqtkfj;ksa ds osru] eafnj Ákax.k dh lkQ&lQkbZ] J)kyqvksa ds cSBus rFkk J)kyqvksa dks LoPN is; ty miyC/k djkus ds fy;s [kpZ dh tk;sxhA** 5. Thus, it is clear that the second appeal is pending consideration wherein there is an interim order granted by the Court. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find that any civil contempt is made out. Apart from this, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/contemnors as well as the contemnors have tendered their unconditional and unqualified apology before this Court with folded hands. 6. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find that any civil contempt is made out. Apart from this, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/contemnors as well as the contemnors have tendered their unconditional and unqualified apology before this Court with folded hands. 6. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances and the fact that the second appeal is pending consideration where there is an interim order in operation, this Court does not deem it appropriate to continue with these contempt proceedings. Therefore, the civil contempt proceedings are dropped against the contemnors. 7. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. Rule nisi stands discharged.