##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:6604]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civ. Contempt Pet. No. 5/2023

Radheyshyam S/o Mohanlal Tiwari, Aged About 60 Years,

Resident Of Thukrai, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh, At

Present 14, Sri Vihar, Tarni Mahadeo Road, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Bengu, District

Chittorgarh.

2. Smt. Santosh W/o Prakash Chandra Jain, Sarpanch Gram

Panchayat Thukrai, Panchayat Samiti, Bengu, District

Chittorgarh.

3. Shri Ramdhan Gurjar, Sub-Registrar And Tehsildar Bengu,

District Chittorgarh.

4. Shri Kishore Singh Sindhi, Land Records Inspector,

Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

5. Banshilal S/o Pyarchand Brahmin, No. 4-6 Is R/o Dorai

Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

6. Bhagwan Lal S/o Pyarchand Brahmin, No. 4-6 Is R/o

Dorai Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

7. Shambhu Lal S/o Pyarchand Brahmin, No. 4-6 Is R/o

Dorai Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

8. Damodar S/o Geetalal Brahmin, Resident Of Dorai, Tehsil

Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

9. Madhubala D/o Geetalal, W/o Suganlal Brahmin, Resident

Of Dhanora, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

10. Saroj D/o Geetalal, W/o Durgesh Brahmin, Resident Of

Rampuria, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

11. Azad S/o Geetalal, W/o Bahadul Sharma, Resident Of

Dhanora, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

12. Preeti D/o Geetalal, W/o Suresh, Resident Of Pachunda,

Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

13. Bhagwati Devi W/o Geetalal Brahmin, Resident Of Dorai,

Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

14. Modiram S/o Ghisalal Dhakad, Resident Of Thukrai, Tehsil

Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

(Uploaded on 15/02/2026 at 01:17:57 PM)

(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:49:35 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6604] (2 of 4) [CCP-5/2023]

15. Manju Bai W/o Prakash Dhakad, Resident Of

Chandakhedi, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

16. Ambalal S/o Devala Dhakad, Resident Of Sri Nagar, Tehsil

Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

17. Santra Bai W/o Mukesh Dhakad, Resident Of

Chandakhedi, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia with

Mr. Nikhil Ajmera

Mr. Vijay Rajpurohit

For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

05/02/2026

1. Despite service, none is present for the respondents.

2. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging

disobedience of orders dated 10.05.2017, 21.08.2017 and

02.02.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.148/2017.

3. Vide interim order dated 10.05.2017, the Court proceeded

on to stay the operation and execution of judgment and decree

dated 16.03.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No.3,

Chittorgarh in Civil Appeal No. 58/2016. Vide order dated

21.08.2017, the appeal was admitted and on the said date,

interim order dated 10.05.2017 was directed to be continued.

Ultimately, vide order dated 02.02.2018, interim order dated

10.05.2017 was confirmed till the disposal of the appeal.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the

aforementioned interim order being in operation, respondent Nos.

(Uploaded on 15/02/2026 at 01:17:57 PM)

(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 02:49:35 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6604] (3 of 4) [CCP-5/2023]

5 to 7 proceeded on to get the mutation entries entered in their

favour and further, to sell out the property in question.

5. Counsel submits that while deciding Issue No.4, the learned

Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.2003,

specifically held that the petitioner was in possession of the

property in question in the capacity of an adopted son. Although

the said finding was reversed by the Appellate Court but then,

judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court stood stayed

vide interim order dated 10.05.2017.

6. Meaning thereby, the finding on Issue No.4 remains intact

and in terms of the said finding, the respondents could not have

transferred the property in question. Hence, the same is in clear

disobedience of the orders of the Court.

7. Heard the Counsel. Perused the record.

8. Vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.2003, the learned

Trial Court rejected the suit as filed by the