JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.7.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners and directing issuance of process. The aforesaid contempt proceedings were initiated on the application moved by the contesting respondents No.2 to 4 under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC for the alleged violation of the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue directing to maintain status quo with regard to the land in dispute. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that revenue suit in question was originally filed by one Satya Narain, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners for perpetual injunction and division of holding against Chhitar son of Ram Karan 1 (since deceased) and now represented in this writ petition by non-petitioners No. 5 to 10 and non-petitioners No. 11 to 18 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dudu. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dudu dismissed the suit on 31:05.2005. The' plaintiff-petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer. With the appeal, they also filed an application 1 under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act of 1955). The said application was dismissed on 28.6.2005. The plaintiffs- petitioners thereupon filed a further appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue partly accepted the appeal vide its order dated 4.4.2006 and remanded the matter back to the Revenue Appellate Authority with a temporary injunction against the non- petitioners No. 11 to 18 restraining them from alienating the disputed land in favour of anyone during the pendency of the said appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. 3. It is contended that the deceased Chhitar purchased stamps on 13.11.2006 for selling the disputed land in favour of non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 but he actually sold the land by executing the sale deed in their favour on 14.11.2006. Eventually, however, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 15.11.2006 and the sale deed was got registered in favour of the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 on 16.11.2006. Eventually, however, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 15.11.2006 and the sale deed was got registered in favour of the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 on 16.11.2006. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the Board of Revenue impleading non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 as respondents therein and it was on that date that the Board of Revenue while admitting the appeal directed that the status quo with regard to the land in question shall be maintained till further orders. The petitioner No. 2 Ram Sahay submitted an application before the Additional Superintendent of ,Police, Dudu on 10.07.2007 complaining against the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 that they wanted to interfere with their possession and destroyed their crops. The Station House Officer, Dudu submitted a report under Section 107/116(3) Cr.PC. against the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 in the Court of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dudu on 10.07.2007 itself. It was thereupon that the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 filed aforesaid application under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC for initiating contempt proceedings for violation of status quo order dated 04.04.2006, issuance of process in which is impugned in the present writ petition. 4. Principal contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners Mr. K.K. Mehrishi has been that the sale executed in favour of the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 by the original defendant Chhitar (deceased) was in violation of the injunction order passed by the Board of Revenue on 20.11.2006 whereby the non-petitioners No. 11 to 18 were restrained from alienating the disputed land in favour of anyone. Such a sale was, therefore, nullity in law and the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 had no locus to file the aforesaid application. The learned counsel in this connection, while relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Paras Mal and anr. v. Ms. Sobhag Devi & Ors., reported in AIR 2007 Rajasthan 73 , argued that the sale deed of the land executed during the pendency of the appeal would not vest any right in favour of the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 being nullity in law in view of the doctrine of lis pendens and there was no necessity for the plaintiffs petitioners to get the sale deed set aside in Civil Court. The learned counsel also relied upon judgment of Delhi High Court in Sital Das Rakyan and another v. Sh. Jain Khartargachh Sangh and others, reported in AIR 2004 Delhi 15 and argued that in any case when the plaintiff-petitioners were in possession of the property and were cultivating the land, they cannot be said to have committed any disobedience of the status quo order passed by the Revenue Board on 20.11.2006 and initiation of contempt proceedings against them was wholly uncalled for and illegal. It was also argued that the status quo order was basically directed against the non-petitioner's, the then respondents in the appeal and being in favour of the plaintiff-petitioners who were appellants in that appeal cannot form basis for initiation of contempt proceedings against them. In fact, the very contempt proceedings against the plaintiff-petitioners were not maintainable and the order of Board of Revenue directing issuance of process against the plaintiff-petitioners is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 24.07.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue directing issuance of notice against the petitioners be quashed and set aside. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners, I have carefully scrutinised the material on record. 6. The application under Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC has been filed complaining disobedience of the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 20.11.2006. Although it is clear that the said order was passed in the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs petitioners but the tenor of the order clearly shows that the Board, while admitting the appeal, directed that the status quo with regard to the land in dispute will be maintained till further orders. However, it cannot be accepted that this order can be read only in a way so as to bind the respondents in the appeal only to maintain the status quo and not the appellants. It is a matter of enquiry by the Board in the aforesaid proceedings as to which party was actually in possession. It would however be too tall a claim to accept that merely because the appeal as filed at the instance of the plaintiffs petitioners, no contempt proceedings against them can be initiated. It is a matter of enquiry by the Board in the aforesaid proceedings as to which party was actually in possession. It would however be too tall a claim to accept that merely because the appeal as filed at the instance of the plaintiffs petitioners, no contempt proceedings against them can be initiated. If the Board had required that the status quo with regard to the land in dispute will be maintained till further orders, the said order was binding on both the parties including the appellants in the appeal (the petitioners herein). Whether or not the sale executed in favour of the respondents No. 2 to 4 was a nullity cannot be decided in the contempt proceedings because, as per the facts disclosed, the sale deed was actually got registered on 16.11.2006 and the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed on 15.11.2006 itself. The order of Board earlier passed on 04.04.2006 restraining the non-petitioners No. 2 to 18 from alienating the disputed land in favour of anyone, was directed to remain in force during the pendency of the appeal. I have my grave doubts as to if that order could have survived even after dismissal of appeal on 15.11.2006 so as to describe the registration of the sale deed in favour of the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 as nullity or even otherwise hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Even if the stamps were purchased on 13.11.2006, and the sale deed was formally executed on 14.11.2006, it was actually got registered on 16.11.2006 after dismissal of appeal on 15.11.2006. But that again is an issue to be examined by the Board on merits. 7. I am not persuaded to uphold the argument that the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 had no locus standi to file contempt proceedings. If they are able to convince the Board that they were in possession of the disputed land as on the date of passing of the status quo order by it on 20.11.2006, the Board cannot be said to have either acted in excess of its authority or without jurisdiction in issuing the process against the petitioners. 8. If they are able to convince the Board that they were in possession of the disputed land as on the date of passing of the status quo order by it on 20.11.2006, the Board cannot be said to have either acted in excess of its authority or without jurisdiction in issuing the process against the petitioners. 8. Question of locus standi is hardly relevant for initiation of contempt proceedings by them as whoever approaches the Court with a complaint alleging disobedience of the Court's order, is no more than an informer or relater of the incident of violation of the Court order and if anyone brings the fact with regard to violation or disobedience of its order to the notice of the Court, the matter then rests with the Court and the alleged contemner. Observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal and another, reported in 2000 WLC (SC) Civil 224 : (2000) 3 SCC 171 are quite relevant in this context which I deem it proper to reproduce as under : "17. xxxxoooooa xxxxxx x A private party of a litigant may also invite the attention of the court to such facts as may persuade the court in initiating proceedings for contempt. However, such person filing an application or petition before the court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the proceedings. He is just an informer or relator. His duty ends with the facts being brought to the notice of the court. It is, therefore, for the court to act on such information or not to act though the private party or litigant moving the court may at the discretion of the court continue to render its assistance during the course of proceedings. That is why it has been held that an informant does not have a right of filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Act against the order refusing to initiate the contempt proceedings or disposing of the application or petition filed by initiating such proceedings. He cannot be called as aggrieved party." 9. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find that the Board in issuing process against the petitioners has committed any illegality or error. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed summarily.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******