Milap Chandra Jain, J. - (1.) This contempt petition has been under Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be called "the Act") against the respondents for disobeying the order of this Court dated September 9, 1987 passed in S B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 126/87. Parties requested that the preliminary objections raised against this application by the respondents be first decided vide order dated January 16, 1991 and various subsequent orders. Relevant facts necessary for deciding them may be summarised thus.
(2.) On November 3,1984, Maharana Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar (Udaipur) died leaving behind his widow Rajmata Sushila Kumari (petitioner No. 2), two sons, namely, Maharana Mahendra Singh (petitioner No. 1) and Maharaja Arvind Singh (respondent No. 1) and a daughter (not a party in this case). Disputes arose in between them over the properties left by him. Civil and criminal cases were filed in various courts id Udaipur. In Criminal Revision Petitions No. 456/84, 14/85 and 15/85 and Misc. Criminal Revisions No. 120/86, 121/86 and 142/86, arising out of proceedings launched under Section 145, Cr.P.C., 1973 and in Civil Revision Petitions No. 427/86 and 430/86, arising out of partition suit, this court passed orders that the possession of the disputed properties be handed over to the party from whom it was taken when their possession was taken by the S.H.O., Ghantaghar (Udaipur) (Receiver) (Respondent No. 4). In Civil Misc. Appeal No. 126/87 in between the parties similar order was passed on September 8, 1987 which is the subject matter of this contempt petition. It has been averred in the contempt petition that on December 9,1988, the petitioner No. 1 came to know that the possession of the disputed properties had been delivered to the respondent No. 1 on December 8, 1988 by the respondent No. 4 in utter disregard of the repeated orders of this Court, on December 20, 1988, he obtained a copy of the letter dated December 7, 1988, sent by Shri S.C. Pagoria Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (respondent No. 2) to the District Magistrate and Collector, Udaipur Shri Atul Kumar Garg (respondent No. 3) directing that the possession of the disputed properties be delivered to the respondent No. 1. They have further averred in it that they were in possession of the disputed properties when their possession was taken by the Receiver (respondent No. 4) as is clear from the record and thus die respondents have wilfully and contemptuously contravened the specific orders particularly tire order dated September 9, 1987 of this Court by handing over the possession of the disputed properties to the respondent No. 1 and also by not getting inventories prepared in presence of the parties or their representatives and under their signatures.
(3.) The respondent No. 1 filed his interim reply, paper No. A11/1-4, raising preliminary objections that the court has issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them in pursuance of its order dated May 9, 1990, long after die expiry of one year from die alleged contempt as according to Section 20 of die Act contempt proceedings can be initiated within a period of one year from the date of its commission. Second interim reply, paper No. A14/1-7, was filed on September 10,1990 taking further preliminary objections that direction was given to the respondent No. 4 only, there is no question of committing contempt of any order by him, Inspector Shri Himmat Singh was the S.H.O., Ghantaghar (Udaipur who delivered the possession of the disputed properties to him has not been made a party in die contempt application and as such contempt petition is not maintainable without his being a party in it.;