SUNEET KUMAR, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The instant contempt petition has been filed for violation of the order dated 16.03.2004 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 1334 of 2003 (Smt. Saroj Kumari and others Versus Smt. Shanti Devi and others), whereby, parties were directed to maintain status quo over the disputed land. Since disputed questions of fact are involved, which cannot be gone into in contempt jurisdiction. Applicant has remedy under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court in contempt jurisdiction would decline to return finding on disputed questions of fact.
(3.) Reference may be made in this regard to a decision of this Court dated 18.09.2013 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4384 of 2013, wherein similar issue fell for consideration. The order dated 18.09.2013 reads thus: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant. ;