IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Application No. 195 of 2005 Subhash Singh and another ….. Applicants Versus Ashutosh Sharma and others ..… Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate for the applicants. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and Shri M.S. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the respondents. The present contempt application has been filed for willful disobedience of the order of the Court dated 23/10/2002 by the opposite parties. In this order, the Writ Court found that there was an allegation that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question and that the respondents were also alleging to be in possession of the same land. The Writ Court found that the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration of their title u/S 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Court accordingly disposed of the petition directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit and further directed that no mutation would be effected till the disposal of the title suit. The present contempt application was filed alleging that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 executed a power of attorney dated 12th April, 2004 in favour of the respondent No.3 who in turn executed the sale deed in favour of S. R. Traders on 30th April, 2004. The sale deed executed indicated that possession was physically taken over by the purchaser from the respondent No.1 and 2 and, consequently, the present contempt application was filed alleging willful disobedience of the order of the status quo relating to the possession of the land in question. 2 Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants at some length, the Court finds that the order of the status quo was confined to the parties mentioned in the writ petition. The opposite parties were not parties in the writ petition. Consequently, it cannot be said that the opposite parties have willfully disobeyed the orders of the writ Court. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that even though the opposite parties were not parties in the writ petition, they came to know of the order when they sought impleadment in the title suit before the S.D.M. wherein they were impleaded and, consequently, came to know about the order of the writ court which was filed in those proceedings by the petitioner. Be that as it may. The applicants cannot blow hot and cold simultaneously. The Court finds that the order of impleadment has been challenged by the applicants in a writ petition questioning the rights of the opposite parties to get impleaded on the ground that they are not necessary parties in the suit. On the other hand, the applicants are pursuing the contempt proceedings on the ground of violation of the order of the writ court. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that there is no willful disobedience of the order of the writ court by the opposite parties. Notices are discharged and the contempt application is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 18th August, 2011 Shiv