SUNEET KUMAR, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The instant contempt petition has been filed for violation of the order dated 18.05.2012 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24789 of 2012 (Great Art Trading Corporation Versus Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Jyotiba Phule Nagar and others), whereby, opposite parties were directed not to alienate the property in dispute. 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. This application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act') has been filed to punish the opposite parties for alleged willful disobedience of temporary injunction order dated 27.2.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaunpur in O.S. No. 1589 of 2003. ;