ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 22.5.2019 in Contempt Application No.15/2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur dismissing the petitioner’s application for quashing of the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC for alleged willful default on his part qua the interim order dated 7.2.2014 passed on an application of the respondent-plaintiffs. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, at the time, the interim order dated 7.2.2014 was passed by the trial court he was not holding the post of Tehsildar, Jaipur Division nor was he holding the post on 24.2.2014 when it was conveyed to the erstwhile Tehsildar, Jaipur Division. It has been submitted that petitioner came to be posted as Tehsildar, Jaipur Division only on 13.8.2014. Vide order dated 10.2.2015 the SDO, Jaipur (First) in Revenue Suit No.110/2014 came to pass a decree for partition and permanent injunction. Pursuant to the said decree the Nayab Tehsildar, Kalwar made requisite revenue entries on 16.2.2015 apparently qua the land covered under the interim injunction in the trial court’s interim order dated 7.2.2014. No act was done by the petitioner or at his instance. Yet he being pursued in the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC for alleged willful default on his part for allegedly not making entry of the interim order dated 7.2.2014 in the revenue records when in fact there was no specific direction to that end. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was moved in the circumstance before the trial court seized of the application under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC for the petitioner’s alleged willful default qua the interim order dated 7.2.2014 praying that he had in no manner whatsoever committed willful breach thereof. Entries in the revenue record following the decree of partition dated 10.2.2015 passed by the SDO were by the Naib Tehsildar and not him nor at his instance. The trial court has however dismissed the said application on the specious ground that it contained the petitioner’s defence which he would be free to set up in the course of the trial in the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC. 3. The trial court has however dismissed the said application on the specious ground that it contained the petitioner’s defence which he would be free to set up in the course of the trial in the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC. 3. Mr.Pankaj Gupta appearing for the petitioner submitted that even if Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was not attracted to proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC, the application filed ought to have been considered under Section 151 CPC which confers inherent powers on the courts inter-alia to set aside at the threshold vexatious proceedings of whatever nature before the civil court. It was submitted that the petitioner was being prosecuted for willful default under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC without any act or omission in breach of the court’s direction on his part. 4. Per contra, Mr.Sudesh Bansal appearing for the respondent-plaintiffs nos.1 and 2, the applicants in the Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC proceeding submitted that the petitioner had earlier moved an application for deletion of his name in the proceedings in issue. The said application was dismissed on 21.8.2015. The order was not put to challenge and has attained finality. Yet the petitioner again by resort to another application filed in the year 2019 this time purporting to be one under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which does not attract to application under Order 39 rule 2(A) CPC is praying for the same relief earlier denied. He submitted that the petitioner in fact had submitted to the court’s jurisdiction and participated in the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC and is to cross- examine the applicant. On 5 occasions adjournments were sought and thereafter the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed. Mr.Sudesh Bansal submitted that the said application in the circumstance seeks to circumvent a final order earlier passed by the court refusing to delete the petitioner as a party in the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC. It was thus rightly dismissed by the court below. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. From the facts which have been brought on record and also reiterated by the counsel in the course of arguments it is apparent that the petitioner’s earlier application for deletion as party in the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC was dismissed on 21.8.2015. It was thus rightly dismissed by the court below. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. From the facts which have been brought on record and also reiterated by the counsel in the course of arguments it is apparent that the petitioner’s earlier application for deletion as party in the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC was dismissed on 21.8.2015. No challenge to the said order was not made and it therefore attained finality. 7. I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot in the circumstance by way of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be allowed to seek the same relief—in a roundabout manner— earlier denied to him. Aside of the aforesaid, the trial in the application under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC is at the stage of applicant’s evidence and the petitioner has taken 5 occasions to cross examine him. I would, therefore deem it appropriate to direct the trial court hearing the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC to dispose it of within a period of three months from today and visit the respondents-plaintiffs with exemplary costs in the event the petitioner-non-applicant’s case of being pursued malafide and without just cause in the application is established before the court. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.