JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia , CJ. The present Revision Petition is directed by the applicant-petitioner against order dated 01.07.2015, passed by the Additional District Judge (II), Shimla, whereby dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 5, was affirmed, Vide order dated 10.12.2013, an application under Order 39, Rule 2- A of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the applicant-petitioner was dismissed. 2. Order dated 10.12.2013 is stated to be passed in violation of the injunction order dated 05.05.2008. The said order had been challenged firstly before the Additional District Judge (II), Shimla by the applicant- petitioner by filing an appeal, which was dismissed on 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-6), which is subject matter of challenge in this petition, also. 3. Initially, the Revision Petition was directed to be heard in due course way back on 23.08.2016. 4. When the matter came up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner- plaintiff's suit has been dismissed and thereafter the First Regular Appeal was also dismissed, but the matter is pending in Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 5. In such circumstances, this Court was of the opinion that the present proceedings would not be maintainable at this stage now, because once the suit itself has been dismissed and as the violation as such sought was of an interim order passed during the pendency of the suit, the said order would be merging in the final order of the dismissal of the suit. Therefore, there would not be any occasion as such to interfere in the order passed by the Courts below dismissing the application passed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. 6. For this, reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2012) 4 SCC 307 . 7. Factual matrix herein is that the petitioner- plaintiff had purchased the land in dispute vide Sale Deed dated 03.06.1996, measuring 390.85 square meteres falling on various Khasra numbers, situated at Annadale, Lower Kaithu, Mauza Kaithu-1, Tehsil and District Shimla. On Khasra No. 811, there existed two private ‘Puja Rooms’, which were also stated to be in possession of the petitioner-plaintiff. 8. On Khasra No. 811, there existed two private ‘Puja Rooms’, which were also stated to be in possession of the petitioner-plaintiff. 8. On 15.09.2007, the petitioner-plaintiff was successful in getting an order of injunction partly in her favour, as the trial Court restrained the respondents/defendants from making any interference in the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817 & 818, whereas the application pertaining to Khasra Nos. 809, 810 & 811 was rejected. 9. Aggrieved by order dated 15.09.2007, the defendants-respondents field an appeal bearing C.M.A. No. 30-S/14 of 2007 before the Additional District Judge, Shimla, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2008, whereby the order of the trial Court restraining the defendants-respondents from making any interference in Khasra Nos. 812 to 818 was set aside and the order made in respect of Khasra Nos. 809 to 811 was upheld. 10. In such circumstances, the petitioner-plaintiff filled an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 5, Shimla, in which two issues i.e. (i) Whether the respondents have intentionally and willfully disobeyed the court order; and (ii) whether the application is not maintainable, were framed. 11. The aforesaid application was disposed of by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide order dated 10.12.2013 while coming to the conclusion that it could not be ascertained on which Khasra number the construction was being carried out as the case of the respondents was that only cleaning of the temple was being done and to prevent the temple from damage, tin sheets were being put thereon. 12. The said order, as noticed, was upheld by the Additional District Judge (II), Shimla, in the appeal on 01.07.2015, which is now subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 13. The suit itself having been dismissed, as noticed earlier, the principles laid down in Kanwar Singh Saini’s case (supra), would apply, wherein the Apex Court has laid down that once the proceedings in the interim order have culminated into the final order and where the case has been dismissed, the interim order shall stand nullified automatically. 14. In the said case, no interim order was ever passed and undertaking given by the appellant-defendant therein, not to dispossess the plaintiff therein from suit premises, had been culminated into final decree. 14. In the said case, no interim order was ever passed and undertaking given by the appellant-defendant therein, not to dispossess the plaintiff therein from suit premises, had been culminated into final decree. In that case, the the appellant had been convicted for committing contempt of Court by violating the undertaking given by him to the Court at the time of disposal of the suit and was awarded simple imprisonment for four months. An application under Order Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC filed by the plaintiff therein, for violating his undertaking, was referred to the High Court on account of the prima-facie case of contempt made by the appellant therein. 15. The Apex Court was thus of the considered opinion that such application would not be maintainable during the pendency of a civil suit and the Court would not entertain application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC , if the suit had already been decreed. 16. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Kanwar Singh Saini’s case (supra), which reads as under:- “16. Be that as it may, the so-called statement/undertaking given by the appellant- defendant culminated into the decree of the civil court dated 12-5-2003. Thus, the question does arise as to whether the application-under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC or under the 1971 Act could be entertained by the civil court and whether the matter could be referred to the High Court at all. 17. Application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC lies only where disobedience/breach of an injunction granted or order complained of was one that is granted by the court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which is naturally to enure during the pendency of the suit. However, once a suit is decreed, the interim order, if any, merges into the final order. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim order always merges in the final order to be passed in the case and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. 18 to 25…………... 26. The case requires to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. Whatever may be the circumstances, the court decreed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated 12-5-2003. 18 to 25…………... 26. The case requires to be considered in the light of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. Whatever may be the circumstances, the court decreed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated 12-5-2003. The said decree was passed on the basis of admission/undertaking made by the appellant on 29-4-2003 and the pleadings taken by him in his written statement. Therefore, in a case where there was any disobedience of the said judgment and decree, the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC should not have been entertained. Such an application is maintainable in a case where there is violation of interim injunction passed during the pendency of the suit. In the instant case, no interim order had ever been passed. Thus, the appropriate remedy available to the decree-holder Mohd. Yusuf had been to file application for execution under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. The procedure in execution of an injunction decree is same as prescribed under Order 39 Rule 2-A i.e. attachment of property and detention of the disobedient to get the execution of the order. In view thereof, all subsequent proceedings were unwarranted. 27. to 33………….. 34. In view of the above discussion, as such proceedings were not maintainable, the order of reference itself was not warranted. It also becomes crystal clear that the appellant had been subjected to unfair procedure from the institution of the suit itself. The suit had been "disposed of in great haste without following the procedure prescribed in CPC. Once the suit has been decreed, the court could not entertain the application under Order 39 Rule C 2A CPC as the suit had already been decreed and such an application is maintainable only during the pendency of the suit in case the interim order passed by the court or undertaking given by the party is violated. In the instant case, no interim order had ever been passed and the undertaking given by the appellant-defendant not to dispossess the said plaintiff culminated into a final decree and thus, if any further action was required, it could be taken only in execution proceedings. There has been manifest injustice in the case and the doctrine of ex debito justitiae has to be applied in order to redress the grievances of the appellant-defendant. The judgment and order impugned cannot be sustained under any circumstance.” 17. There has been manifest injustice in the case and the doctrine of ex debito justitiae has to be applied in order to redress the grievances of the appellant-defendant. The judgment and order impugned cannot be sustained under any circumstance.” 17. Thus, keeping in view the above principles, it is manifestly clear that at this stage, once the suit stands dismissed, there can be no finding recorded whether there is any violation of the interim order, as the said interim order no longer stands and has now been merged in the main suit. 18. Counsel for the petitioner is also not in a position to cite any judgment contrary to the aforesaid proposition of law. 19. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.