1 5 S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION .8/2008. Smt. Rehmat & Ors. Vs. Mohammed Haneef & Ors. Date of Order :: 22nd February 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Suraj Raj Jain, for the petitioners. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record of this Contempt Petition No.8/2008 and so also Civil Second Appeal No.347/2006, this Court could only reject the contempt petition as being misconceived. The Civil Suit (CO No. 134/2004) filed by the applicant Smt. Rehmat raising the grievance against the refusal by the Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur to register the sale document came to be decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Jodhpur on 12.05.2006 directing the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to register the document presented by the plaintiff after completion of the formalities within 30 days leaving it open for the authorities to recover deficiency in stamp duty and registration fees, if any. An appeal [Civil Appeal (Decree) No.22/2006] taken by the defendant Mohammed Haneef against the judgment and 2 decree aforesaid came to be dismissed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur on 29.07.2006. Second Appeal (CSA No.347/2006) taken thereafter came to be dismissed along with cognate matters on 01.03.2007 by this Court. In the result, the decree as passed by the learned trial court stands affirmed. It is an admitted position, as stated in this contempt petition, that the document in question has been registered after the aforesaid directions. However, the petitioners herein seek to submit that now the Revenue Authorities are not entering mutations and that the petitioners are being harassed by interference in their possession and even by way of physical assaults. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the submissions as made in the contempt petition and made a plea for consideration of the case of the petitioners who, according to the learned counsel, are being deprived of their legal rights despite the order passed by this Court that amounts to contempt on the part of the non-petitioners herein. The submissions fall short of logic; and cannot be accepted. The suit was filed precisely on the cause of action concerning refusal to register the sale document. The decree passed in that relation for registration of the document, according to the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioners, has been complied with and the document has 3 been registered. Anything else, including any proceedings in furtherance of the sale document, or any interference in any other right of the petitioners, obviously remains away and beyond from the subject matter of the litigation in which ultimately the order was passed by this Court on 01.03.2007 rejecting the aforesaid second appeal. No case is made out for taking any proceedings in contempt in this matter. The contempt petition is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/