DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The instant petition has been filed by the applicants petitioners assailing the order dated 15.3.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Contempt Case No.04/2016 tilted as Prem Chand and Ors. v. Sitaram , whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC, was dismissed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the non-petitioner filed a civil suit alongwith temporary injunction application in the Court of Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur for injunction regarding a wall situated in western side of the house, which was purchased in auction by his forefathers. It was averred in the suit that half of the portion of the eastern side of the aforesaid house was sold to Shri Mangilal and portion of the western side of the house is in continuous possession of the non-petitioner-plaintiff and a wall was constructed over it by him, to which the defendants are trying to demolish. Thereafter, defendants filed written statement and reply to the temporary injunction application. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court vide it's order dated 29.5.2012, restrained the defendants not to raise any construction and demolish the disputed wall and also ordered to maintain status-quo of the disputed place till disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner raised construction of stairs and altered the position of the disputed wall inspite of status-quo order resulting the defendants have to file civil contempt petition under Order 39, Rule 2 (A) readwith Section 151 CPC on 1.3.2016, for alleged disobedience of order dated 29.5.2012 passed by the learned trial Court, alongwith application under Order 26, Rule 9 CPC to appoint Survey Commissioner and to bring physical position of disputed wall before the Court, which was dismissed by the learned Court below vide impugned order dated 15.3.2016.;