1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.7.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners and directing issuance of process. The aforesaid contempt proceedings were initiated on the application moved by the contesting respondents No.2 to 4 under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC for the alleged violation of the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue directing to maintain status quo with regard to the land in dispute.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that revenue suit in question was originally filed by one Satya Narain, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners for perpetual injunction and division of holding against Chhitar son of Ram Karan 1 (since deceased) and now represented in this writ petition by non-petitioners No. 5 to 10 and non-petitioners No. 11 to 18 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dudu. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dudu dismissed the suit on 31:05.2005. The' plaintiff-petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer. With the appeal, they also filed an application 1 under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act of 1955). The said application was dismissed on 28.6.2005. The plaintiffs- petitioners thereupon filed a further appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue partly accepted the appeal vide its order dated 4.4.2006 and remanded the matter back to the Revenue Appellate Authority with a temporary injunction against the non- petitioners No. 11 to 18 restraining them from alienating the disputed land in favour of anyone during the pendency of the said appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority.

3. It is contended that the deceased Chhitar purchased stamps on 13.11.2006 for selling the disputed land in favour of non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 but he actually sold the land by executing the sale deed in their favour on 14.11.2006. Eventually, however, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 15.11.2006 and the sale deed was got registered in favour of the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 on 16.11.2006. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the Board of Revenue impleading non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 as respondents therein and it was on that date that the Board of Revenue while admitting the appeal directed that the status quo with regard to the land in question shall be maintained till further orders. The petitioner No. 2 Ram Sahay submitted an application before the Additional Superintendent of ,Police, Dudu on 10.07.2007 complaining against the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 that they wanted to interfere with their possession and destroyed their crops. The Station House Officer, Dudu submitted a report under Section 107/116(3) Cr.PC. against the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 in the Court of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dudu on 10.07.2007 itself. It was thereupon that the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 filed aforesaid application under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC for initiating contempt proceedings for violation of status quo order dated 04.04.2006, issuance of process in which is impugned in the present writ petition.

4. Principal contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners Mr. K.K. Mehrishi has been that the sale executed in favour of the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 by the original defendant Chhitar (deceased) was in violation of the injunction order passed by the Board of Revenue on 20.11.2006 whereby the non-petitioners No. 11 to 18 were restrained from alienating the disputed land in favour of anyone. Such a sale was, therefore, nullity in law and the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 had no locus to file the aforesaid application. The learned counsel in this connection, while relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Paras Mal and anr. v. Ms. Sobhag Devi & Ors., reported in AIR 2007 Rajasthan 73 , argued that the sale deed of