JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur in appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. It is, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner filed appeal under Section 92-A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). The following order came to be passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur on 29.08.2012:- "29.08.2012 " vf/koRrk izkFkhZ Jh eqDrs'k ekgs'ojh mifLFkrA ewy vihy esa vf/koDrk Jh bZiqlsu fo'uksbZ us vf/kdkj i= is'k dj mifLFkfr nhA varfje vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ij lquk x;kA mHk;i{k ekSds dh ;Fkk fLFkfr cuk, j[kus ij lger gSA fygktk vfxze vkns'k rd i{kdkjku ekSds dh ;FkkfLFkfr cuk, j[ksaxsA i=koyh okLrs tokc cgk izk0 i= fnukad 17-9-2012 dks is'k gksA " 3. However, despite order dated 29.08.2012, the respondents have entered into a lease deed dated 29.11.2012 with Sumer Mal Bohra, which is in clear violation of the order passed by the District Court, Jodhpur and, therefore, the respondents be hauled up for wilful disobedience of the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by District Court. 4. A notice was issued by this Court to respondents to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them. 5. A reply to the said petition has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, indicating that the respondents have not disobeyed any order passed by jurisdictional court. It is further indicated that the possession of the subject property was handed over to the lessee Sumer Mal Bohra on 29.06.2009/30.05.2009 and the lease deed has been executed thereafter. Further, it has been submitted that if the court comes to the conclusion that any inadvertent violation of order passed by the district court has happened, the respondent tender unconditional apology. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents by way of executing the lease deed has attempted to overreach the process of the court. The averments made in the reply regarding handing over the possession are ex-facie incorrect inasmuch as subsequent to the execution of the lease deed, an FIR has been lodged by the lessee under Section 448 IPC against the petitioner, which by itself clearly indicates that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property. The averments made in the reply regarding handing over the possession are ex-facie incorrect inasmuch as subsequent to the execution of the lease deed, an FIR has been lodged by the lessee under Section 448 IPC against the petitioner, which by itself clearly indicates that the petitioner is in possession of the subject property. It is submitted that despite grant of status quo order by the district court, the execution of the lease deed is a clear violation and a deliberate attempt on part of the respondents in violating the order passed by the court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a look at the order passed by the district court would reveal that status quo has been ordered regarding the site of the property and there was no injunction against issuing of the lease deed and, therefore, it cannot be said that any deliberate disobedience of order passed by this Court has been made by the respondents. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. 9. By order dated 29.08.2012, the district court directed the parties to maintain status quo at the site. The order of status quo passed in case has to be normally understood in the context of the prayer made in the application seeking interim order. In the application filed by the petitioner before the District Court under Section 151 CPC seeking stay during the pendency of the appeal under Section 92-A of the Act, the following prayer was made:- " vr% izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd nkSjkus yfEcr izLrqr vihy] vizkFkhZ vf/kdj.k@U;kl o mlds leLr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks ikcUn fd;k tkos fd os oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij izkFkhZuh ds dCts esa n[kyvUnkth ugha djs o uk gh mls csn[ky djus dh dksf'k'k djsa o uk gh vU; fdlh ls djkosA vU; dksbZ lgk;rk tks izkFkhZuh ds i{k esa gks] lkfnj Qjek;h tkosA " 10. A look at the above prayer reveals that the emphasis rather the whole prayer was not to dispossess the petitioner. Even as per petitioner's own submission, she continues to be in possession of the suit property and the status quo order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the District Court can only be understood in the context of prayer made that the petitioner was not to be dispossessed from the subject property. 11. Even as per petitioner's own submission, she continues to be in possession of the suit property and the status quo order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the District Court can only be understood in the context of prayer made that the petitioner was not to be dispossessed from the subject property. 11. The issuance of the lease deed by the respondents, in view of the prayer made in the application and the order passed by the District Court cannot be said to be in violation of order dated 29.08.2012. 12. In that view of the matter, no case is made out against the respondents, the notices issued are discharged. The contempt petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******