JUDGMENT :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by this Court, whereby, while setting aside the judgment dated 18.12.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue, the status quo with regard to the disputed property was directed to be maintained during pendency of the suit.

2. Drawing attention of this Court towards the sale deed dated 29.11.2012 executed by some of the respondents/contemnors of the subject property, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have executed it despite order of this Court to maintain status quo and have, therefore, committed contempt of this Court. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed to purge the contempt and they may also be punished suitably.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since, their prayer in the temporary injunction application was confined to restraining the petitioner from dispossessing them from the subject property, the order of status quo would operate to that extent only. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. In a revenue suit filed by the petitioner, the respondents have field a counter temporary injunction application under Section 212 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 (for brevity, "the Act of 1955") praying therein that the petitioner/plaintiff be restrained not to dispossess them from the subject property during pendency of the revenue suit. Their prayer was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.08.1991. The first appeal as also the revision petition preferred there against came to be dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and by the Board of Revenue vide orders dated 30.06.1994 and 18.12.1997 respectively. The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5704/1998 filed by the respondents there against came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2013 wherein, the above mentioned direction of status quo was issued. Indisputably, the prayer made by the respondents in their counter temporary injunction application was to restrain the petitioner/plaintiff from dispossessing them from subject property during pendency of the revenue suit and therefore, the order of status quo passed by this Court in a writ petition preferred by the respondents against rejection of their application for temporary injunction application, has to be read in that context only in absence of any specific direction otherwise.

6. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, by execution of a sale deed of the subject property even during currency of the status quo order, the respondents cannot be held guilty of willful disobedience.

7. Resultantly, this contempt is dismissed.

8. Notices are discharged.

9. The pending application also stands disposed of.