SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS D-56 CLCON No. 204 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Anshu Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners, through video conferencing. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Dr. Neha Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. By means of the instant contempt petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondent under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”). Heard and perused the file. In Second Appeal No. 5 of 2016, Satish Kumar and another v. Rajnish Kumar and others, and other connected matter, this Court on 06.01.2016 had directed the parties to maintain status quo. The petitioners claim that status quo order has been defied; therefore, application has been filed under Section 39 Rule 2A of CPC. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, submits that this is an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, which can be filed as a miscellaneous application in the civil appeal only; for that purpose, contempt petition may not be entertained. At it, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the contempt petition. A contempt petition once filed, may not be withdraw, because it is a matter between the Court and the contemnor. But, in the instant matter, as such any contempt of Court has not been reported. What is reported is defiance of the Court’s order passed in the second appeal and action is sought under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, which definitely cannot be entertained in contempt jurisdiction. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (Ravindra Maithani J.) 21.08.2025 Avneet/