[2025:RJ-JP:27594-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 11/2023 In D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.452/2016 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15345/2015 1. Smt. Munni Devi Wife of Shri Rakesh Kumar Vijayvargiya, R/o Plot No. C-66, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Rakesh Kumar Vijayvargiya S/o Shri Nathu Lal, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Plot No. C-66, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus Durgesh Kumar Vijayvargiya, Director, M/s Art Age Pvt. Ltd.2 Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Tehsil And District Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma along with Mr. Lakhan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Kalavatiya along with Mr. Aditya Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 23/07/2025 1. This is a contempt petition preferred by the petitioners alleging violation of the status quo order passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.452/2016 dated 11.11.2016. 2. It is the contentions of the petitioners that in spite of the status quo order having been passed directing both the parties to maintain the status quo, as it exist today, with reference to the property in question, the respondent-contemnor has reflected the land of the petitioners as Gair Mumkin Rasta and also mentioned that there is 18 meters road mentioned in the zonal plan on the [2025:RJ-JP:27594-DB] (2 of 2) [CCP-11/2023] said Gair Mumkin Rasta. He, thus, submits that mentioning of such aspects in the application form as submitted to the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), for the purpose of issuing of a lay out plan of the society amounts to committing contempt and violation of the status quo. 3. He further submits that on account of such mentioning, the JDA has put a gravel road on the land of the petitioners at the instance of the respondent. 4. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contentions made by learned counsel. Violation of the status quo would have to be done deliberately and willfully by the parties who are involved in the case. Hence, the status quo would bound only concerned party. No violation or encroachment or disturbance to the land has been made by the respondent alleged contemnor and merely mentioning of wrongful facts if any, in their application form for issuance of the lay out plan, would not mean that the respondent has committed violation of the Court’s order, as the Court has nowhere restricted them from filing an application and mentioning of nature of land. It is noticed that the JDA or its authority are not party to the litigation. 5. In view thereto, the entire contempt proceeding initiated at the behest of the petitioners is found to be without basis and misconceived. Therefore, the present Civil Contempt Petition is dismissed. 6. Contempt notices stand discharged. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV KUMAR/113