4. By a bear reading of the above order, it _ on considering the statement of the oomplainant_£.\z;ifitVv --. .V that, the respondent is attempting to
land bearing sy.:~zo. 95/3 to the extent ‘gamete. _
Single Judge has directed the rgspfigdents Wstatus
quo. While the fact is so, it area
in dispute was one acre, the an attempt
on the part of the in 5 guntas
of land excxuding 35% In this regard, the
C0mp]ajnant..h~a$!:AV.§:.:31pOtt> ‘tvllvriea euneepondenoes between the
mspondcnt§.1_om¢ia§i§§e’ gft A1mextx1e–D makes it clear
that, the zespeiidents the status quo order gmnted by
to of 35 guntas and new a dizection
iestzeti-.te’~–et)ns$der regarding the remaining undisputed
such, as the respondents admittedly are
tiat thektstatus quo order in respect” of 35 guntas, the
W :v§§feeentVegppre*ficnsion alone will not justitjr invoking the contempt
tags. As per the pmv1s1o’ ‘ :13 of the Contempt Law, there
deliberate violation or disobedjmee of the order of the
Mere apprehension on the part of the oomplainant will
not entittet’. her to approach the Court on the contempt side as
fl’