1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.66 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 135 OF 1984 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: P.R.BORKAR, J. Date : July 09, 2010 1. Advocate Vanita Sangole, holding for Smt.M.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner, states that Respondent No.5 has not obeyed the order/directions alleged to have been given by this court. 2. Learned counsel drew my attention to the judgment in Second Appeal No. 135 of 1984 decided on 28.7.2010, the copy of which is at Exhibit A to the contempt petition. Perusal of the said judgment shows that the second appeal was preferred by original 2 Defendant No.2 Sukhdeo against the judgment and order of the learned Assistant Judge, Osmanabad, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1982. That appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Paranda, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.36 of 1981. 3. As can be seen from paragraph 4 of judgment in the said second appeal, it is held by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that defendant did not acquire title to the land survey No.58-D and defendant Parubai was not the owner thereof. The Court held that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the land in which plaintiff's mother-in-law had 1/2 share. Ultimatley, second appeal was dismissed. 04. From the judgment in Second Appeal, there does not appear any 3 directions to have been given by this court which the contempt petitioner claims to have been disobeyed by respondents. 05. It also appears that subsequently, on the basis of judgment given by the civil court, various authorities were moved and ultimately by letter dated 19.3.2009, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, informed the Collector, Osmanabad to take entries in the revenue record as per the decision of the Court by following due procedure and to report compliance. 06. Mere directions given by the Divisional Commissioner to the Collector would not be sufficient for Respondent No.5-Talathi to take any action. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that Respondent No.5 Talathi can be held to have committed any contempt as alleged by the 4 petitioner. Contempt petition is already dismissed against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 07. In the facts and circumstances, this contempt petition is dismissed. Contempt petition disposed of as withdrawn. pnd/cp66.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)