EDUSEI J.: In the instant proceedings the plaintiff is asking the court to call upon the defendant to show cause why she should not be committed to prison for contempt of court.
On 10 January 1966, the court, on the application of the plaintiff, granted an interim injunction in the following terms:
“It is hereby ordered that the defendant herein, her servants, agents or workmen be and are, hereby restrained from carrying on any work upon the parcel of land in dispute and/or in connection with the building thereon while the rights and entitlements of the parties herein still remain pending and undetermined.”
Again on 25 May 1966 the court on the application of the defendant reviewed its order and varied it to enable the defendant “to continue with the building to the extent only that the said building may be saved from collapse or destruction by having doors and windows put in and the septic tank and soak-away duly completed.” I consider this to be the essential part of the order reviewed…