FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders |Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | CONTEMPT PETITION NO.72/2010 Shri D.K.Kulkarni,Adv for petitioner. Shri V.G.Shelke,AGP.for Respondent State. Shri R.N.Dhorde,Adv.for Respondent no. 2. ... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 10/8/2010. 1] The complaint in the instant Contempt Petition is that the petitioner is the plaintiff and had filed Regular Civil Suit No.134/1999, which was decreed on 13/3/2001. Regular Civil Appeal No. 65/2001 was also dismissed by the appellate Court on 2/1/2008 confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. The Second Appeal No.157/2008 was also dismissed by this Court on 11/12/2008 and the S.L.P. preferred i.e. S.L.P. (Civ) No.4841/2009 was also dismissed in default on 28/8/2009. On 1/4/2010 it was restored. Inpite of these orders, which were passed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, the complaint is that, by an order dated 10/3/2010, the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parli Vaijnath has tried to reopen the proceedings by asking the parties to address the Court on the question of executability of the decree. According to the petitioner, it was not on any application or any objection from any parties in the execution proceedings. 2] This Court had passed an order on 31/3/2010 calling report from the respondent no.2 the learned Judge who has passed the order in Regular Darkhast No.44/2001 in respect of which the contempt has been complained of, in the present petition. Accordingly, the report dated 9/12-4-2010 is received by this Court. After going through the report, it appears that the learned Judge has tried to give opportunity to the parties and there was no intention to keep away the decree holder, from executing the decree. According to him, the decree holder has misunderstood the order and hence he has approached this Court, complaining about the contempt. The learned Judge has requested for assigning the matter i.e. Regular Darkahst No.44/2001, to some other Court if the petitioner has any grievance in respect of dealing with the matter. 3] In view of the aforesaid factual background, no case is made out for issuance of any notice of contempt in the present case. However, since the learned Judge has made a request for assignment of the matter to some other Court, the District Judge is directed to take appropriate steps to assign the matter to some other Court. Contempt Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. (R.K.DESHPANDE) JUDGE umg/cp72-10