not to have been considered by the court at that ad interim stage. The commercial user of the property is definitely a subsequent fact. On the date when the order impugned dated 05.05.2022 was passed, the property had not been put to commercial use in effect and therefore, the commercial user of the property after passing of the order dated 05.05.2022 is clearly in defiance of the order impugned dated 05.05.2022 which permitted the defendants to use the property in the manner and nature it was being used prior to that date. But then, firstly, this Court is not in contempt jurisdiction and secondly, although argued, no relief regarding the said user has been prayed for in the present appeals even by any subsequent application or amendment in the original appeal. There is no dispute on the proposition of law that subsequent acts, if any, may be taken into consideration by the appellate Court while deciding the issues of prima facie case and balance of convenience. But then, the subsequent acts have to be pleaded and a relief qua the same has to be prayed for. The prayer as made in the present appeals is only for setting aside the impugned order to the extent it granted permission to the defendants to raise construction and to let out the property. So far as these two reliefs are concerned, as held in the preceding paras, the findings of the learned Trial Court to said extent cannot be upheld being in excess of jurisdiction. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents has also undertaken not to raise any construction or to let out the property till the final disposal of the temporary injunction application.
