JUDGMENT 1. - On 16.03.2009, this contempt petition was placed before the Court for orders regarding service on the non-petitioners Nos. 3 & 4. However, after noticing that notices were ordered to be issued in this matter as back as on 23.05.2005 to show cause as to why the proceedings in contempt be not initiated and the matter was still pending for service, the record of the case was examined; and, after noticing that in this contempt petition, the petitioner has essentially complained of disobedience of the order for temporary injunction as passed by the Court of Additional Munsif No. 1, Bikaner on 07.05.1985 in the Civil Misc. Case No. 72/1984, this Court expressed prima facie doubts on the proposition that the petitioner has taken up the proceedings in the contempt jurisdiction of this Court instead of resorting to the regular remedy of the proceedings under Rule 2AORDER39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if at all there was any disobedience of the injunction order. The learned counsel for the petitioner was also posed the questions about the present status of the original civil suit wherein the said temporary injunction was issued on 07.05.1985. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner today submits on instructions that the said suit is still pending and at present, an application moved under Rule 5ORDER14 of the Code of Civil Procedure is being dealt with. 3. In this contempt petition, the petitioner has essentially referred to the facts regarding passing of mutation order by the Naib Tehsildar on 08.01.2002 and then, his recalling such order on being apprised of the aforesaid injunction order but then, the respondent No. 3 & 4 filing the appeal and the same having been decided ex parte by the respondent No. 1 on 04.08.2003 while restoring the said mutation order dated 08.01.2002. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents have proceeded in a planned conspiracy in order to flout the judicial orders; and has asserted that the questioned orders were in total disobedience and breach of the injunction order dated 07.05.1985. It has been prayed that the respondents be punished for willful disobedience of the said order dated 207.05.1985. 4. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents have proceeded in a planned conspiracy in order to flout the judicial orders; and has asserted that the questioned orders were in total disobedience and breach of the injunction order dated 07.05.1985. It has been prayed that the respondents be punished for willful disobedience of the said order dated 207.05.1985. 4. Perusal of the order dated 07.05.1985, produced as Annexure-4 with this contempt petition, makes out that the Court concerned issued temporary injunction in the following terms: " 5- fu"d"krZ% izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS o vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk fo:) vizkFkhZ bl vlj dh tkjh dh tkrh gS fd os ewy okn ds fu.kZ; rd izkFkhZ ds dCts 'kqnk Hkwfe nks gtkj oxZ ehVj ls izkFkhZ dks csn[ky u djsa vkSj u gh dksbZ ,slk d`R; djsa ftlls izkFkhZ ds dCtsa esa ;k mlds ekfydkuk vf/kdkjksa ij foijhr izHkko iM+sA " 5. If at all any act done thereafter by the respondents is alleged to be of disobedience of the said injunction order, there is no reason that the petitioner-plaintiff has not adopted regular proceedings under Rule 2AORDER39 of the Code of Civil Procedure and invited appropriate inquiry by the Court concerned who had issued the said injunction and who is dealing the related original civil suit. In this view of the matter, there does not appear any reason to continue with this contempt petition any further. 6. The contempt proceedings are dropped and the notices are discharged. 7. However, it shall otherwise not be of any prejudice for the parties taking resort to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law.Petition Dismissed. *******