As per case facts, the Petitioner filed a Contempt Petition alleging violation of a previous order where the State had undertaken to supply approved drawings from a meeting. The Petitioner ... claimed the correct drawings were not supplied or were improperly delivered. The Respondent-State argued that the approved drawings were supplied multiple times, and the Petitioner acknowledged receipt, further citing Petitioner's contractual breaches like constructing extra rooms and delayed payments. The question arose whether the drawings "as approved in the meeting held on 07.05.2024" were supplied, as the contempt jurisdiction does not allow for varying the original order or adjudicating complex contractual disputes. Finally, the High Court found that the State had substantially complied by approving and forwarding the drawings, which the Petitioner acknowledged. The Court stated that the Petitioner's deeper grievances regarding the specific drawings approved or contractual conditions were beyond the contempt jurisdiction's scope, leading to the dismissal of the petition.