[2026:RJ-JP:9034] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 316/2024 1. Mrs. Manju Chauhan W/o Shri Lalit Chauhan, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Plot No. E-130 (South-Part), Siddharth Nagar E Block, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Shri Arvind Jain, S/o Late Shri Sardar Mal Jain, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Plot No. E-130, (Nort-Part), Siddharth Nagar E Block, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Mr. Syed Sheeraz Ali Zaidi, Deputy Inspector General - 1, Collectorate, Banipark, Jaipur. 2. Mr. Akhil Arora, Additional Chief Secretary (Finance), Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 1st Floor, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur- 302005, Rajasthan. 3. Sonal Meena, Sub Registrar First, JDA Building, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub Registrar First (Collectorate Banipark, Jaipur) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kuri, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi, Adv. for Mr. Kartikeya Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 26/02/2026 1. This contempt petition is preferred against the respondent for flouting the interim order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12693/2023, whereby the operation of the order dated 24.02.2020 was stayed. [2026:RJ-JP:9034] (2 of 3) [CCP-316/2024] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the garb of the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 the respondents are not registering the lease deed, therefore, they have made willful disobedience of this Court's order and shall be punished accordingly. 3. Contrarily, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that vide interim order dated 02.11.2023, the operation of order dated 24.02.2020 was stayed. However, there was no direction in the interim order to the effect that the respondent would register the lease deed, therefore, no contempt is made out, hence, the present contempt petition may be dismissed. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that pursuant to the impugned order dated 02.11.2023, no steps have been initiated to recover the amount so stayed, therefore, no contempt is made out. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12693/2023 was preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Collector (Stamp) Jaipur First, in Case No.428/2024 State v. Shri Kushal Sharma & Anr., whereby fraudulent application filed by the respondent No.3 for payment of stamp duty on Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2006, was determined by the Collector Stamp. 6. The Court vide impugned order dated 02.11.2022 stayed the operation of order dated dated 24.02.2020. In the impugned order, there was never a direction that if the petitioners submit the lease deed then the same shall be registered by the respondents. [2026:RJ-JP:9034] (3 of 3) [CCP-316/2024] 7. The impugned order simply says that the operation of the order dated 24.02.2020 shall remain stayed. The Court while adjudicating a contempt petition, cannot go into the merits of the case and delve into the question as to, whether it was compulsory for the respondents to register the lease deed or not, as prayed by the petitioners. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that in pursuance to impugned order dated 02.11.2023 no steps have been initiated to recovery the amount so stayed, therefore, no contempt is made out. 9. Accordingly, the instant contempt petition stands disposed of and rule is discharged. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-86