1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5461/07 Bhikam Chand & anr. vs. The State & ors. Date of Order: 14.9.2007 Hon'ble Mr. Prakash Tatia, J. Mr. D.S. Beniwal for the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 17.7.2007 passed on petitioners' application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, whereby the petitioners sought permission to be impleaded as party in the proceedings initiated on application filed by the respondent-private party for taking action under Section 21 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the officers of the Gram Panchayat, Phalodi. The petitioners' application was dismissed on the ground that in proceedings before the authority below only matter for consideration was to take action for non-compliance of the order passed in Panchayat Revision No.2/94 dated 23rd July, 1994 and order passed in Misc. Case No.66/2000 dated 31st March, 2001. It appears from the facts mentioned in the petition as well as from the documents that above two orders were passed in Panchayat Revision Petition in favour of the private respondent and those were not complied with by the respondent Gram Panchayat, therefore, the application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the officers of the Gram Panchayat was submitted by the private respondent. In that 2 application, the authority below - the Addl. District Collector, First, Jodhpur could not have determined the rights of the petitioners in any manner nor could have examined the legality and validity of the orders dated 23rd July, 1994 or 31st March, 2001, therefore, the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10,C.P.C. was rightly dismissed. The petitioners if claim their right, title or interest in the property in dispute then the only remedy available to the petitioners was to either challenge the above two orders by initiating proper legal proceedings or by filing suit for appropriate relief in appropriate court. The scope of the contempt proceedings cannot be enlarged may it be the rights of the third party who is claiming his possession over the property in dispute in respect of which the orders have been passed and there is allegation of non-compliance of those orders. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by which petitioners were not impleaded as party by the court below. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioners is dismissed. ( PRAKASH TATIA ),J. mlt.