FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.196 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.639 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.528 OF 2007. ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent. 2 The contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 12th February, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Application No.639 of 2007 in Second Appeal No.528 of 2007 by which the parties were directed to maintain status quo and not to create third party interest till disposal of the appeal. 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of passing this interim order, the suit lands were barren and now the respondent is cultivating the said lands. The learned Counsel, in support of his contention that the status quo means the things to be maintained as existed on the date on which the order was passed, invited my attention to the dictionary meaning of ‘status quo’ and submitted that status quo means the existing state of things at and given date. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satyabrata Biswas and others vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and others, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1837 and more particularly, paragraph 29 thereof and submitted that even in the light of the impugned order of status quo, respondent cannot cultivate the land and it has to be kept as it was on the date on which order of status quo came to be passed by this Court. 4 The respondent has filed affidavit-in-reply and it is stated in the said affidavit that on the date of filing of the second appeal as well as civil application, admittedly the deponent was in possession and at present also the deponent is in possession of the land. It is further stated that the contention of the petitioner that the meaning of status quo is to keep the land barren is totally wrong and erroneous as it is based on wrong assumption and presumption. 5 After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the order of which disobedience is alleged, I am of the opinion that the thrust of the order appears to be that the parties should not create third party rights during pendency of the second appeal. If it is not in dispute that the respondent is in possession of the suit land, why he should not cultivate the suit land. Though the Counsel was at pains to argue that status quo means existence of state of things at and given date, it has to be understood in the context of the facts of the case. In this case, admittedly, the respondent has not changed nature of the land and has not created any third party rights and only he is cultivating the land of which he is in possession, which is not disputed by the petitioner. 6 In this view of the matter, contempt petition is devoid of any merits. That apart, the judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the said case, the party therein had created sub lease. Therefore, the facts in both cases stand on different footing. 7 The contempt petition stands dismissed. Notice stands discharged. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 27.10.2010. PLK/*