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.169/2007 Shri P.G.Godhamgaonkar,Adv.for applicant. Shri S.V.Chandole,Adv.for R.1 Shri S.K.Kadam,Adv.for R.3 to 5. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 01/12/2009. 1] There is a decree passed in favour of the present petitioner by the Civil Court in respect of the title as well as possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The said decree has been executed and the petitioner is put in possession of the property. Accordingly, the revenue records are changed and the entry in the name of petitioner showing him as the owner and the cultivator of the field, has been taken. This was sought to be changed by the revenue authorities at the instance of respondents 1 and 2 who filed proceedings for injunction in the Civil Court in which they have failed, however, with the aid of revenue authorities, the respondents tried to change the entries in the revenue records. The Tahsildar seems to have passed an order which was ultimately the subject matter of revision petition under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Additional Commissioner by his order dated 10/2/2004, granted status quo, which was continued subsequently. According to the petitioner, the status quo is operating till this date. 2] It seems that the respondent no.2 has moved an application (Exh.B) annexed to the Contempt Petition, with a prayer that his name be added as respondent in the case and the name of Praful the respondent no.1 be deleted from the array of respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this action on the part of respondent no.2 amounts to contempt of Court, as it is in violation of the status quo order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The respondent no.2 in this application refused his title over the suit property, which according to the learned counsel, is contrary to the declaration granted by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, the change which is proposed, is contrary to the order which was passed in execution proceedings, putting the petitioner in possession with ownership of the property and therefore, this amounts to contempt. 3] It is a fact that till this date no orders are passed on this application (Exh.B) filed by the respondent no.2. Entries are not changed. The entires in the revenue record still stand in the name of the petitioner. If the respondents nos.1 and 2 are trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner, inspite of the petitioner having decree in his favour, it is open for the petitioner to adopt all such other remedies as are available to him in the eyes of law. So far as the violation of the status quo order is concerned, the entries have in fact, not been changed and the same stand in the name of the petitioner. If any change in the revenue record contrary to the order of status quo passed by Additional Commissioner is effected, then the competent authority is the Additional Commissioner who can take appropriate action against the respondent, for violating the status quo. 4] In view of above, I do not find any reason to proceed with the contempt petition. The same is dismissed. However, the dismissal of this contempt petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner in protecting his interest and complaining before the appropriate authorities, competent to take cognizance of the matter. (R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) umg/cp169-07