Wilful contempt requires subsisting disobedience: demolition after expiry of an interim restraint did not amount to contempt.

Wilful contempt was not established where the alleged demolition occurred after the interim restraint had expired, so no subsisting order was in force at the time of the act. Although the conduct was not treated as fully bona fide and the removal of the superstructure was described as a mistake and inadvertence, the Court accepted the unconditional apology and the statement that possession had been restored. On that basis, the Court found no intentional or wilful disobedience and declined to treat the conduct as contempt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were guilty of wilful contempt for demolishing the petitioner's superstructure after the interim order had expired.

Analysis: The interim restraint had continued only up to 1.8.95 and the demolition was said to have occurred on 11.8.95, when no subsisting interim order was in force. Though the conduct was not viewed as fully bona fide and the removal of the structure was said to have been a mistake and inadvertence, the second respondent tendered an unconditional apology and stated that possession had been restored. In these circumstances, the Court accepted the explanation and held that the respondents had not acted with intentional or wilful disobedience.

Conclusion: Wilful contempt was not made out, and the contempt application failed.

---