1 Contempt Petition No.96/2011 in First Appeal No.3224/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.96 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.3224 OF 2009 Shivprakash s/o Ramkishan Malpani and others ... PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. Anjali Dube Bajpai, Advocate for petitioners Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Shri S.R. Choukidar, Advocate for R.No.8 to 11 & 13 ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 20th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to prayer clause (BB) of the Civil Application No.13409/2009 in First Appeal No.3224/2009, and submitted that there is disobedience of the order passed by this Court. She further submits that, on the basis of the interim order, the respondents are approaching to the Revenue authorities and, therefore, there is a disobedience of the order passed by this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2 Contempt Petition No.96/2011 in First Appeal No.3224/2009 respondents submits that, they are original plaintiffs and order is passed in their favour. There is no question of any disobedience much less willful disobedience of the order of which contempt has been alleged in this Contempt Petition. 2. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioners and respondents. The prayer clause (BB) of Civil Application No.13409/2009 in First Appeal No.3224/2009 reads thus : “(BB) Pending hearing and final disposal of the First Appeal, the respondents (Orig. defendants) or anybody claiming through them may be restrained by an order of injunction from obstructing in any manner in the peaceful possession of the applicants over the suit land Survey No.40/1 admeasuring 39 R. situated at village Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna and further not to create third party interest or alienate the suit property in any manner, which is described in the plaint, which is at Exh. A of the application and further not to change nature of property in any manner.” 3. On perusal of the prayer clause (BB), which is reproduced hereinabove, there is a direction to the original defendants i.e present petitioners and not to the respondents herein. Therefore, restrain/ injunction is clamped upon the present petitioners. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no disobedience as 3 Contempt Petition No.96/2011 in First Appeal No.3224/2009 alleged. Contempt Petition is devoid of any merits. Same stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/cp96.11