As per case facts, the dispute involved a civil suit for property partition, where a preliminary decree was passed in 1959 and a final decree in 2003 for a portion ... of land in favor of the first respondent. A Single Judge directed the Tahsildar to effect mutation in 2009. Due to non-compliance, a contempt petition was filed in 2014, which the Single Judge allowed. The Division Bench (original) set aside this contempt order, citing limitation and unenforceability against the State. Despite the Supreme Court dismissing challenges to the original Division Bench's order, a subsequent Division Bench (review) of the High Court reversed it. The question arose whether the High Court correctly exercised its review jurisdiction and if the contempt petition was maintainable, specifically regarding the interpretation of 'continuing wrong' for limitation purposes. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's review bench exceeded its jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC by re-examining the merits and relying on new evidence not relevant to the review's scope. The Court clarified that the Tahsildar's failure to effect mutation was a single act of disobedience, not a continuing wrong, and thus the contempt petition was time-barred as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The impugned review order was set aside, and the original Division Bench's judgment was restored, leaving title issues open for a competent forum.