SUNEET KUMAR,J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
(2.) The instant contempt petition has been filed for violation of the order dated 20.1.2017, whereby, parties are directed to maintain status quo. The parties shall not create any third party interest nor change nature of the property without leave of the court. Applicant is the opposite party in the appeal. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellants therein are making constructions on the disputed plot. 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. 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.
(3.) It has been alleged that opposite parties have violated the order of status-quo passed by the Civil Judge by making construction forcibly on the suit property on which temporary injunction was operating. Section 10 of the Act vests every High Court with the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of courts sub-ordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of of contempt of itself, only exception being a contempt in respect of sub-ordinate court where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. ;