IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 1 OF 2006 IN CONTEMPT APPEAL NO.5 OF 2006 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.301 OF 2005 IN A.O. NO. 724 OF 1985 IN B.C.C. SUIT NO.6734 OF 1983 Anil Bhagwanji Jobanputra .. Petitioner Vs Suryakant Bhagwanji Jobanputra and others ..Respondents Petitioner-in-person appears. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & S.J. VAZIFDAR , J. DATE : 14TH MARCH , 2008 P.C.: This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who appears in person, for recalling of the order dated 7th July, 2006, passed by the Division Bench of this court, dismissing the appeal in limine. It has been observed in the order that the learned Single Judge was not persuaded to hold that the respondents had committed any contempt of the order passed by the court. Resultantly, the Appellate Bench declined to interfere with the orders impugned in the Contempt Appeal No.5 of 2006 which by typographical error, it might have been described as a L.P.A. 2. In Contempt Appeal No.5 of 2006, the appellant had challenged an order dated 18th March, 2006 on the ground that it wrongly acquitted the respondents who had allegedly violated three orders dated 10th April, 1990, 15th January, 1998 and 25th August, 1999. It is a settled principle of law that no appeal is maintainable under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against an order acquitting a contemnor (See D.N. Taneja versus Bhajan Lal- (1988) 3 SCC 26). The application is also beyond the purview of the scope of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and does not specify the basic ingredients for filing a review application. 3. After having heard the petitioner on merits, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of dismissal of the appeal dated 7th July, 2006 as the appeal itself was not maintainable in law. The petitioner has referred to the order of this court dated 15th January, 1998 to say that the Court Receiver was directed to take certain actions which have not been taken. If that be so, the petitioner is directed to take out appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with law. However, this review application is dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.