SUNEET KUMAR,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The instant contempt petition has been filed for violation of the order dated 20.09.1982 and 22.09.1983 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.2495 of 1982 (Baijnath Ahir and another Vs. Rammu Nonia and others), whereby, the execution of the decree appealed for shall remain status quo. 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. ;