1. By way of this Civil Application under Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-

"a. That the respondents and their assignees / licensees may be held in civil contempt of violating/disregarding the order of the Hon'ble Court and for violating/breaching the undertaking tendered by him and be punished as per Section 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and / or Order 39 rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for civil disobedience of the status quo order dated 24/12/2020 passed by this Hon'ble court.

b. That for such illegal and contemptuous act, the respondents may be ordered to pay appropriate amount as cost/penalty that this Hon'ble court deems fit.

c. Any other order/relief that this Hon'ble court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The case of the applicant is that it is a private limited company registered under the provision of Companies Act, 2013, incorporated on 3.5.2005, conducted multifaceted divisions of businesses like Accounting and Finance, IT, Audio Visual design solutions, Data management and others and has developed business not only in India but across continents and established goodwill and reputation in the business fraternity. The applicant company was also established as a subsidiary of the Analytix Business Solutions LLC to cater the clients from India and to serve the clients based in USA and other countries. The applicant company provides accounting and book keeping services to clients in US and other countries and the services mainly includes Accounts Payable Management of the vendors and Bill Processing, Accounts Receivable Management and Customer invoice Processing, Sales Entries to the accounting system taking data from client's point of sales system, Bank and Credit card entries and reconciliations thereof, Payroll Processing and entries in the accounting system, finalization of accounts for the clients, and several such services being provided and is also helping out compliance with the audit requirement of the clients, prepare necessary documents in compliance to applicable US Laws and US GAAP, Budgets and Cash Flow Projections and any other financial analysis, including Taxation Services.

3. Applicant company stated to assist and keeps working on multiple initiatives, tool development, encouraging employees to come up with new ideas and thoughts and in pursuit thereof applicant company has also developed and has a couple of systems, which is used for public purpose. One such tool of the applicant is Insight 360 General Portal. The applicant company also synonymously calls client portal or partner portal because this system caters both the businesses. channel of Direct Clients as well as Partners. According to the applicant, there are lot of other features available which basically help partner to operate more efficiently. The applicant company is also engaged in the multi dimensional business of providing solutions to the business entities of various sectors in the matters pertaining to data collection, integration, financials, accounting and also developing softwares and computer programs for accounting as per the needs of the clients and for efficient handling financial data. Applications and systems related to aforesaid areas are very critical and essential for applicant’s future success and growth and also would help current workforce spend less time on transactional activity and put more focus on the client advisory services.

4. It is the case of the applicant that respondent No.1 herein joined the applicant company in the year 2011, as an Accounts Trainer and was assigned the responsibility of handling financial data and developing programs pertaining to financial data management. Whereas respondent No.2 is the business enterprise of the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 provides services which are identical and similar to the services provided by the applicant. During the course of employment of respondent No.1 in applicant company, respondent No.1 became privy to several confidential documents, data, source code and object code of computer programs/ software, customer/client list for the purpose of conducting the projects. One such tool/ software / computer program was developed by the team of the applicant, i.e. ‘Financial Statement Review Application (hereinafter referred as "Review Application")’ and said software was conceptualized and was started to be developed by the in- house team of the applicant in the year 2017. Respondent No.1 who being an employee of the applicant company was also part of the team of the employees who developed the said review application internally and was in touch with other employees.

5. Applicant stated in the application that as a part of usual protocol and practice, respondent No.1 entered into Non- Disclosure of Confidential Information, Non Competition, Non- Solicitation and Intellectual Property Rights Agreement dated 14.5.2018, by virtue of which, respondent No.1 specifically undertook not to divulge any proprietary information, intellectual property or any data to any third party or even for own use. Respondent No.1 also undertook not to enter into competitive business and not to engage in any project or work during the employment of the Appellant, which is competitive or detrimental to business interest of the applicant company. By virtue of the aforesaid execution of agreement, specifically, respondent No.1 was under an obligation to obey the terms and conditions of the said Agreement dated 14.5.2018. But later, on the applicant company smelled that respondent No.1 appears to be acting contrary to the agreement, intending to cause a huge and substantial loss and dis-reputation the goodwill of the applicant company and as such, he was asked to give status about development of the said Review Application and share the object code and source code of the application / computer program on which respondent No.1 was working as per the directions and orders of the applicant company. Respondent No.1 realizing the situation, refrained from sharing the said object code and source code to the applicant company and did not share even technical details of the software. So much so, respondent No.1 in fact admitted that he has indulged in the activities detrimental to the applicant company’s interest with the person outside the company to develop the said software and has also admitted, according to the applicant company, that respondent No.1 had divulged the information to third parties without authorization and has acted in defiance of the Non- Disclosure agreement specifically executed.

6. The applicant company has stated that respondent No.1 during the course of time in employment with the applicant company, had also taken away crucial technical data like object code, source code, so much so even program of Review Application which was developed under the aegis of the applicant company, is also being used in complete defiance of not only breach of the contract but as an infringement of copyright. When the applicant company confronted with the respondent No.1, he tendered resignation on 20.6.2020 in the midst of such dispute and as per the policy of the company, employee wishes to resign, must serve 90 days of notice period. It came to the notice of the applicant company that respondent No.1 had already started his activity by illegally obtaining Financial Statement, Review Application software of the appellant through its business venture Autoreview.IO and was offering to the customers and general public, the said computer program which is basically a property of the applicant company. and in that activity, has joined the hands with another accomplice/ partner/ co-owner named Mr. Vishal Shah and has created the said business venture named Autoreview.IO (respondent No.2) and respondent No.1 and its co-founders are openly advertising the Financial Statement, Review Software/ Autoreview App through internet medium which includes Social media Apps and websites like Linkedin and thus by illegally taking other review application of the applicant company has started its business venture and since same is in complete violation of the terms of the agreement, the applicant company was constrained to issue notice on 21.7.2020 to desist from such activity. But, a vague reply was given by respondent No.1 through lawyer on 29.7.2020, which had constrained the applicant to file a civil suit in the Court of learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on 10.9.2020, which was registered as Civil Suit No.735 of 2020.

7. Along with the said suit, an injunction application was also filed which came up for consideration before learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court on 11.9.2020 and after hearing learned advocate for the applicant, learned Chamber Judge did not grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction but issued notice and summons upon the present respondents. Then, respondents with an intention to drag the proceedings were tendering adjournment applications which were repeatedly allowed by the Trial Court and simultaneously, the Trial Court denied injunction vide order dated 11.9.2020 and later on, also granted adjournment repeatedly, and as such, applicant was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing a petition, being Special Civil Application No.12097 of2020. In the said petition, order dated 11.9.2020 was challenged, whereby the Trial Court denied the ex-parte ad-interim injunction to the appellant. It is the assertion of the applicant that when the petition was listed for hearing on 1.10.2020, Hon’ble Court sought details from the Trial Court which were scheduled for hearing on 1.10.2020. But on that day, i.e. on 1.10.2020, appellant did not get ZOOM meeting, i.e. hearing from the Trial Court, and the proceedings were not conducted on that day before the Trial Court. In view of such situation, the Hon’ble Court passed an order seeking report from learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court and the petition was adjourned. The appellant- plaintiff got information that the suit proceeding was kept on 8.10.2020 for filing rejoinder of the plaintiff, which was filed on 5.10.2020, i.e. before the next date in the Trial Court, i.e. 8.10.2020. Later on, on 9.10.2020, hearing was conducted on notice of motion before the Trial Court and the matter was kept for judgment on 12.10.2020. Since the hearing was already concluded before the Trial Court on injunction application/ notice of motion, the petition was withdrawn as became infructuous. But, later on, learned Trial Court passed an order on 12.10.2020 dismissing the injunction application/ notice of motion filed by the appellant, which has resulted into filing of a substantive appeal before this Court, which is numbered as Appeal from Order No.113 of 2020.

8. The appeal came up for consideration on admission hearing along with the interim relief application, i.e. Civil Application No.1 of 2020 and on 29.10.2020, notice was issued, made it returnable on 5.11.2020.

9. On 5.11.2020, party-in-person, i.e. respondent No.1 appeared and requested for some time to engage advocate and made statement in no uncertain terms that, “he will not utilize the Audit Review Software/ Computer Program through AR.IO website and copyright over the review application software till the next date of hearing” and relying upon the said statement being made before the Court, learned advocate representing the appellant had no objection for time being granted. Accordingly, the matter was kept on 4.12.2020. Since this assurance is recorded by the Court in the order dated 5.11.2020, same deserves to be quoted hereunder:-

“When the matter is taken up for hearing, Party-in-Person Mr. Nihir Shah has appeared and requested that he wants to engage a lawyer to defend the present proceedings and has also shown inclination to make statement that he will not utilize the Audit Review software / Computer Program through AR.I0 website and copyright over the review application software till the next date of hearing.

Considering the statement being made, learned advocate Mr Jatin Y. Trivedi has no objection for the time being granted to the party- in-person. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order as well as the Civil Application are kept on 4th December 2020.”

10. Subsequently, on 4.12.2020, learned advocate Mr. Harshil Shukla, who received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.2, had sought time on account of medical exigency. But, at that time, serious grievance was raised that respondent No.1 (party-in-person) is flouting his own statement and as such, with a liberty to the applicant to file appropriate proceedings, time was granted and statement was ordered to be continued. On the next day, i.e. on 22.12.2020, again grievance was voiced out by learned advocate for the applicant that respondents are outrageously flouting the assurance which has been given before the Court and are acting detrimental to the interest of the applicant and contemptuous act is being committed and by taking serious note of such conduct, the matter was then kept on 24.12.2020 to enable learned advocate Mr. Shukla to get proper instructions as he was not having sufficient instructions in that regard. Then, the matter went on and then on account of advocate being suffering from Covid-19 infection, the matter was again adjourned to 23.4.2021 and status-quo which was ordered to be continued.

11. The record indicates that subsequently, applicant company has filed an application for breach of order dated 24.12.2020 under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which appears to have been affirmed on 7.7.2021 and presented on 23.7.2021. Based upon such application, being placed before this Court through office formality, the Court issued notice on 3.8.2021, made it returnable on 13.8.2021 and after completion of the pleadings, application for breach of order is heard. On 6.10.2021, during the course of arguments, learned senior counsel Mr. Percy Kavina appearing for the opponent had requested to grant an opportunity to cross-examine the applicant, but on account of paucity of time, same could not take place and the submissions then concluded of Mr. Kavina on the issue of request for cross-examination on 21.10.2021. The application was then heard in which both the sides in addition to their submissions and pleadings, have tendered written submissions and placed relevant judgments for consideration of the Court and accordingly, the application was kept for orders on that issue.

12. It appears that the main Appeal from Order No.113 of 2020 is at present also pending for consideration and hearing.

13. Learned senior counel Mr. Rashesh Sanjanwala appearing with learned advocate Mr. Jatin Y. Trivedi for the applicant has vehemently contended that the evidences pertaining to persistent use, offer, advertisement and promotion of the Autoreview software by the respondents is neither controverted nor specifically denied nor challenged in the reply which has been filed in the proceedings and as such, it is a clear case of breach of civil disobedience of the injunctive order dated 24.12.2020. It has been submitted that documentary evidences which are adduced along with this application are clearly establishing that there is a breach of injunctive order and there being no triable issue in absence of challenge to the said document, question of proving the document or cross- examination of the appellant by respondent does not arise. Ad- hoc measure which had been reflected in an order dated 24.12.2020 was not adhered to and maintained by respondent and on the contrary, respondent continued to promote and offer the Autoreview through co-founder Mr. Hardik Mehta. The fact of such use and promotion is not being controverted and for which the applicant has placed voluminous documents to substantiate it and has contended thereafter that even co-founder Mr. Hardik Mehta was under an obligation to comply with order dated 24.12.2020. By referring to several documents, Mr. Sanjanwala has submitted that contact number of Autoreview.IO is same as that of the company incorporated by respondent No.1’s wife i.e. Elevar Infotech Pvt. Ltd., which means that directly and indirectly respondent No.1 and Mr. Vishal Shah are continuing to offer, promote and advertise Autoreview software. Further, it has been contended that respondent No.1 and Mr. Vishah Shah representing respondent No.2 made a false statement on oath vide their reply to Civil Application that they have no concern with Xenett. However, respondents are admittedly and apparently the co-founders of the said concern, which is offering Autoreview software, which was already injuncted by this Court and as such, by tendering written submissions, the stand of the other side to have cross-examination is opposed. Detailed narration of the said brief submissions, the Court deems it proper to reproduce hereunder:-

"a. That, the right to cross examine the appellant must be given to the respondent by considering the Affidavits filed by the appellant to be an Examination in Chief, before the Hon'ble court decides the application.

The respondent relied upon the judgment of:

Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh v/s State of UP, 2010 (0) GIHET-SC 48020.

Three Cheers Entertainment Ltd CESC Limited 2008 (0) GLHEL-SC 42499.

• Response by the appellant: The Hon'ble Court is in sesein of the Civil Application as an Appellate Authority and not as a court of Onginal Jurisdiction or Trial court and thus the procedure t Trial or leading of the evidence or cross examination of the appellant would not be applicable or open.
• While exercising the powers under Or. 39 R 2A of CPC, 1908. the Hon'ble court may take appropriate action or decision on the basis of the fact, documents on records and conduct of the parties.
• The Proceedings before the Hon'ble court are of SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS in nature and thus the respondent without controverting, challenging, disputing the evidences relied upon by the appellant or otherwise cannot challenge the credibility of evidence or veracity of the appellant's signatory.
• The respondent's request to cross examine the appellant is prima facie baseless and untenable when respondents have prima facie failed to raise any triable issue for which they seek to cross examine the appellant.
• The judgment cited by the respondent are pertaining to Criminal contempt proceedings whereas the proceedings before this Hon'ble court is with regards to Civil Disobedience Breach of Order under Or. 39 R. 2A CPC, 1908 and thus cited judgment is not helpful to the respondent. Further, the cited judgment itself holds that Evidence Act, CrPC do not apply to contempt proceedings and thus request of the respondent to Cross examine the appellant is untenable as the respondent have not even established prima facie that the documents produced by the appellant are concocted or fabricated.

b. That the documents produced by the Appellant with CA no: 12021 are website printouts and are electronic document and thus Certificate under S. 65B of the Evidence Act ought to have been filed by the appellant.

The respondent also relied upon the judgment of:

Anvar P. V v/s P. K. Basheer, 2014(0) AIJEL-SC 55727

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, Civil Appeal Nos 20825-20826 of 2017.

• Response by the appellant: It is submitted that the documents. produced by the appellant are though obtained from the websites and Internets, but are easily accessible from anywhere and can be accessed before the Hon'ble court also. The said documents being accessible publically are thus prone to being checked and verified by any party including the respondents.
• The respondents have not controverted the said website copies in their reply and have not even shown prima facie as to how the said evidences are fabricated or concocted Thus as the said website evidences produced by the appellant are uncontroverted and can be accessed from anywhere including before the court. hence the requirement of Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is not required.
• Further, the proceedings before the Hon'ble court are not that of a suit/original jurisdiction and thus the Trial proceedings are not applicable to the same.
• The Hon'ble court may decide the Civil application on the basis of the uncontroverted and unchallenged documents produced with the application which forms the part of the material on record before the Hon'ble court.
• Thus the respondent is not entitled to take such hyper technical objections to avoid the conclusion and outcome of the Civil application filed by the appellant."

14. By referring to the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel has submitted that this is a clear contempt committed by respondent No.1, which has the effect of outrageously defying the order dated 24.12.2020 and as such, has submitted that the relief prayed for be granted in the interest of justice. However, Mr. Sanjanwala has submitted candidly that main Appeal from Order against original impugned order is still pending for its hearing.

15. As against the aforesaid, learned senior counsel Mr. Percy Kavina assisted by learned advocates Mr. Chintan Desai and Mr. Harshil Shukla, appearing for the respondents has vehemently contended that present application is not requiring any attention at this stage in view of the fact that main Appeal from Order No.113 of 2020 is pending before the Court and applicant cannot be allowed to argue the present application as if it is a substantive hearing of the main appeal. In fact, Mr. kavina has submitted that there is no merit in the stand taken by the applicant. Mr. Kavina has further submitted that this application must be heard along with main matter since there are crucial issues about rights of the parties, which require adjudication and as such, has submitted that on the basis of the documents which are attached this application, no ultimate conclusion can be arrived at to establish so-called contemptuous act of the respondents.

16. Learned senior counsel Mr. Kavina has submitted that Order 39 Rule 2A no-doubt is a summary procedure in which no strict rule of evidence to be applied, but principle of natural justice will have to be vigorously applied. It has been contended that even if the proceedings are to be initiated, then right to establish defense by cross-examination of witness cannot be denied and when such right of cross-examination is given, then only stand of the applicant can be tested about correctness of the material and assertion made by applicant and this request for cross-examination is not a belated as well. By referring to the provisions contained under the Evidence Act, Mr. Kavina has submitted that right to cross-examination is inbuilt in the Statute and same can be applied here as well and as such, before proceeding ahead, a request is made to allow him to cross- examine the applicant so as to see the veracity of the stand taken by him.

17. Mr. Kavina, learned senior advocate, has submitted that this application is not only devoid of merit, but legally not tenable in view of the provisions contained under the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Gujarat) Rules, 1984 and same is to be heard by the Division Bench. It has been submitted that allegations which are leveled about prima facie committing contempt are nothing but concoction and afterthought and has clearly asserted that so far as the deponent herein is concerned, i.e. Mr. Nihir Shah, S/o, Shri Bharatkumar Shah, opponent No.1 is neither associated with Autoreview nor associated with Xenett and there is no evidence to suggest that he has flouted the assurance or order dated 24.12.2020 and stand of applicant is a seriously disputed version.

18. Learned senior counsel Mr. Kavina after referring to the brief affidavit filed has contended that allegations leveled are baseless and it is a clear example of arm-twisting tactics adopted by the applicant. It has been contended that by a reasoned order, learned Trial Court on 12.10.2020 has rejected the injunction application and undisputedly, present Appeal from Order has not been examined on merit till date. However, instead of proceeding ahead with said main Appeal from Order, applicant is resorting to arm-twist method by filing parallel proceedings and as such, has requested that since main appeal is at large before the Court, present application may not be entertained at this stage.

19. Learned senior counsel Mr. Kavina has submitted that the opponent is an Accountant by profession and is neither a technical person or nor a part of technical team while working in the applicant company and as such, there was no question of launching any new software and by referring to this, has contended that since main Appeal from Order is at large before the Court, present application at this stage may not be entertained and if same is to be proceeded, then right of cross- examining the applicant be given and for that purpose, written submissions have been filed along with reference to few decisions and since same has been placed before the Court, Court deems it proper to reproduce the same hereunder:-

• "Application of Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.

The provision itself makes it abundantly clear that any electronic record printed on paper" has to pass the test laid down U/s.. 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act and in view of the same the certificate has to be produced along with the evidence adduced with the pleadings and in absence of the same the evidence adduced before the Hon'ble Court is inadmissible.

In support of the arguments canvassed, the following decisions are relied upon by the respondent no.2:-

1. Anvar P.V Versus P.K. Basheer kindly refer Paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24 & 26.

2. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Versus Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal kindly refer paras 30 to 32 & 59.

Right of Cross-Examination in contempt.

The Indian Jurisprudence provides the right of Cross-examining the deponent placing reliance on whose deposition an inference is sought to be derived by the Hon'ble Court before whom the deponent has deposed. The rejection of which would tantamount to gross injustice to the contemnor and the same would be in violation of Principle of Natural Justice.

In support of the arguments canvassed, the following decisions are relied upon by the respondent no.2:-

1. Three cheers Entertainment (P) Limited Versus C.E.S.C. Limited kindly refer paras- 22, 28, 29, 31 & 34.

2. Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh kindly refer paras- 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 & 20.

• Application for cross examination alien to law

It is a matter of right for the respondent no.2 to cross examine the deponent upon whose deposition a decision is sought to be derived at, denial of which would cause grave injustice to the respondent no.2 and the same would allow the evidence to go untested. The only test required to be passed in contempt proceedings with regard to cross examination is that there should be a demand/request for cross examination. An application seeking cross examination is not required and not a condition precedent to cross examining the deponent.

In view of the aforesaid arguments. advanced, the respondent no.2 places reliance upon the following provisions:

1. Kindly refer section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2. Kindly refer 0.18 R. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."

20. From the aforesaid rival stand being taken and both the sides have contested present application as if the main trial is to be conducted, the Court in such a situation is not in a position to ignore the fact that against the main order refusing interim relief passed against the applicant, a substantive Appeal from Order is very much pending for adjudication and is at large before the Court.

21. Further, the application filed along with series of documents to allege violation of ad-interim order dated 24.12.2020 has the genesis from the initial order dated 5.11.2020. On 5.11.2020, when the matter came up for consideration on first returnable, party-in-person requested for time to engage a lawyer to defend the present proceedings and at that juncture, upon initial objection being taken, it appears that inclination was shown to make statement that opponent will not utilize Audit Review software / computer program through AR.IO website and copyright over the review application software till next date and upon such statement being made, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi then had no objection for time being granted and this assurance is made subject matter of the grievance about violation and based upon subsequent orders, present application is filed. In the background of the aforesaid orders being passed, which are part of the record, main Appeal from Order appears to have not been requested to be processed before Coordinate Bench and got adjourned from time to time by extending the protection which was narrated in the form of orders.

22. So, on one hand, applicant is challenging in an Appeal from Order the decision of rejection of injunction not being granted to it, and when assurance was recorded, as stated herein-above, applicant has instead of proceeding ahead with main proceedings, has chosen to file this application for contempt and tried to vigorously pursue this offshoot proceedings keeping the main case undecided.

23. No-doubt, violation of any order is to be taken to its logical end by taking strict view of the matter. But in a situation like this, it appears that by series of documents, it is alleged that assurance given before the Court by the opponent is being flouted but at the same time, applicant is facing refusal of injunction order by the Trial Court on merits against which, applicant has filed a substantive Appeal from Order and as such, rights are more interwoven in the main proceedings which is yet to be adjudicated upon on merits and as such, though the applicant has made a valiant attempt to establish that opponents have violated the interim order, but basic right is the subject matter of the main proceedings and as such, it appears that both the sides instead of contesting the main proceedings have chosen to agitate on offshoot proceedings.

24. From the record, it appears that first assurance has been given by the opponent, which is reflected in the order dated 5.11.2020 and same being violated as alleged seriously by the applicant, the Court was pleased to pass an order on 24.12.2020 and while passing the said order of status-quo, in the context of interim relief, it was also recorded to hear urgently the main matter and same was placed along with Civil Application by fixing date on 7.1.2021 and interim protection continued. Record indicates that main matter then was not seriously requested to be proceeded by either side and same is reflecting from the orders dated 10.2.2021, 17.2.2021, 1.3.2021, 22.3.2021 and in an order dated 5.4.2021 and Coordinate Bench has clearly recorded accommodation being granted for last time upto 23.4.2021 and thereafter, main matter was not requested to be taken up. In fact, present Civil Application appears to have been filed in the month of July 2021 and then stiff contest is tried to be made on present application rather than requesting a concerned Court to take up main matter on merits. In a situation like this, no-doubt, applicant might be justified in projecting that there is a violation of interim order passed by the Court, but said aspect in view of several documents having been presented and in view of the request for cross-examination being made, deserves a detailed adjudication but under the guise of this offshoot proceedings, it is not open for the parties to avoid the hearing of the main matter on merit.

25. Hon’ble the Apex Court in a situation almost similar in line has made few observations which the Court would like toreproduce here-under from the relevant paragraphs Nos.22 and 23 of the decision in the case of Quantum Securities Private Limited and others Vs. New Delhi Television Limited reported in (2015) 10 SCC 602 [LQ/SC/2015/812] :-

"22. We are also of the considered view that when the issue on merits is seized of by the original court in civil suit/proceedings and rights of the parties are still not decided on merits then it is not proper for this Court to probe into the facts and record any finding on any of the issues arising out of collateral proceedings such as the one here else our observation may cause prejudice to the parties while prosecuting their case before the original court on merits.

23. It is for these reasons we are of the considered opinion that it would be apposite to request the learned Single Judge to decide Notice of Motion No. 1553/2013 renumbered as 488/2014 arising out of Civil Suit No. 677/2013 renumbered as 284/2014 on merits in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Till it is decided, we are inclined to stay the contempt proceedings out of which these appeals arise. After the disposal of the Notice of Motion, the contempt proceedings may be decided in accordance with law including its maintainability etc."

26. Looking to the aforesaid observations which have been made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, here in the instant case, main Appeal from Order proceedings are pending wherein rights of either party will be examined in the context of interim relief which was refused to the applicant by Trial Court and as such, the Court is of the considered opinion at this stage to keep present application in abeyance till hearing of the main Appeal from Order gets decided. While coming to this conclusion, the Court is not expressing any opinion on merit with regard rival contentions of learned senior counsels of both the sides on present controversy of application at this stage, but application deserves to be put to its logical end only after disposal of the main Appeal from Order and for that purpose, the Court is leaving it open for the applicant to forthwith make a request to the concerned Court for expeditious disposal of the Appeal from Order by taking appropriate steps.

27. This is in view of the fact that any observation or conclusion which may be made will have a bearing upon the issue being examined in the main proceedings and that normally, to be avoided in view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court since this being an offshoot proceedings and as such, the Court at this juncture is expressing no opinion on the stand of either side and same will be examined at an appropriate stage. The Court is also of the opinion that violation of any order is to be viewed strictly but at this stage, without right being established in the main proceedings, to initiate and conclude the proceedings would normally to be avoided and as such, in considered opinion of this case, present Civil Application is required to be kept in abeyance and it will be open for the applicant to precipitate further after conclusion of the main Appeal from Order, especially on the issue of interim relief in the said proceedings.

28. In view of the aforesaid opinion of the Court, the Court has not dealt with and examined the rival contentions, decisions and merits of the submissions at this stage, so as to see that it may not have any effect on consideration of the issue to be decided in the main proceedings.

29. Accordingly, present Civil Application is ADJOURNED, leaving it open for the applicant to file appropriate note for taking up, after disposal of the interim relief issue in the main proceedings or main proceedings being finally concluded, whichever is earlier. It is also observed that both the sides shall cooperate with the hearing of the interim relief issue in the main proceedings. It is also observed that all the issues are kept opened of both the sides.