JUDGMENT Sushil Harkauli and Sanjay Misra JJ.
1. The petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition No. 55751 of 04, which was disposed of finally by a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated 23.12.2004. By that order the learned Single Judge directed the trial Court to decide the application of the petitioners for interim injunction in suit No. 684 of 2004 expeditiously and further directed that till the disposal of the application for interim injunction, the parties shall maintain status quo.
2. By this writ petition the petitioners want enforcement of that order of status quo passed by the learned Single Judge If the order has been violated during its continuance,the normal remedy is to file a civil contempt petition before the Single Judge Bench dealing with such contempt matters. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,such a cival contempt application has already been filed and the same is pending.
3. We are of the opinion that normally for an enforcement of a final order of learned Single Judge of this Court a fresh writ petition before a Division Bench should not be entertained because firstly, it would amount to permitting Bench hunting tactics on the part of litigants, by giving them the unfettered choice to go before the Single Judge Contempt Bench or the Division Bench dealing with civil misc. writ petitions.
4. Secondly and more importantly it would involve the risk that having argued the contempt petition before the Single Judge Civil Contempt Bench and not finding the Bench in favour, the litigant may be tempted to approach the different Division Bench by means of misc. writ petition.
5. Normally, every situation in which there is a risk of conflicting orders being passed in two parallel proceedings bv different Benches, must be avoided.
6. Therefore, while leaving it open to the petitioners' to pursue the pending civil contempt proceedings, we decline to entertain this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.