FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 161 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.: 312 OF 1989 1. Counsel for the Petitioner took me through the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vaijapur, district Aurangabad in Regular Civil Suit No.140 of 1969. Present Petitioner No.1 deceased Venubai was Defendant No.1B, Petitioner No.2 Asrabai was defendant No.1C, Petitioner NO.3 Sundarabai was defendant No.1D, Petitioner No.4 Kalyabai was defendant No.1A, Petitioner Sulyabai Dangre was defendant No.1F and Petitioner/ deceased Bhau Khatik was defendant No.2 in Regular Civil Suit No.140 of 1969. Suit was for possession of land survey No.11. Copy of the judgment of the trial Court is on record at Annexure-A. Counsel for the Petitioner, from this copy of the judgment, points out that the suit was partly decreed, plaintiff were declared to have acquired title to the suit land on the basis of the will. This was the decree passed by the trial Court on 21st March, 1985. This decree was challenged by filing First Appeal by the aggrieved defendants/ present petitioners. The first appeal came to be dismissed on 13th April, 1989. Aggrieved FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. petitioners/ original defendants, thereafter, filed second appeal No.312 of 1989. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said second appeal has been dismissed by this Court. Apart from this, counsel for the Petitioner points out order passed by the Registrar of this Court in Civil Application NO.2703 of 1989 in Second Appeal No.312 of 1989 Annexure-B, page 34. He took me through prayers in the Civil Application i.e. prayer clause 4 (a) seeking stay to the execution of the judgment and decree dated 13th April 1989 in Regular Civil Appeal No.90 of 1989 filed against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.140 of 1969. Order passed by the Registrar on 10th January, 1990 grants stay to the execution of the decree. Counsel for the petitioner also points out Annexure-C, copy of the sale deed allegedly executed by the Respondent. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners, this sale deed is in violation of the order passed by Registrar of this Court and, therefore, the Respondents have committed contempt. 2. I have given thoughtful consideration to the averments made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. is not possible to countenance to the submission for holding that there is deliberate and/ or willful disobedience and/ or breach of the ordeer passed by the Registrar of this Court on 10th January, 1990. I see no substance in this contempt petition. Contempt petition stands dismissed and disposed of. No costs. [S. B. DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:29.06.2009 ans/161