1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 21/2009 (Kisan Sahebrao Sawale VERSUS Prayagabai Pralhad Sawale & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.R. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 21, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 01.10.2007 in Writ Petition No.431/2007. It appears that the petitioner had filed a contempt petition no.78/2008 seeking action against the respondents for violation of the same order dated 01.10.2007. It appears that the contempt petition was dismissed in default in view of non removal of office objections. An application was filed by the petitioner before the contempt Court seeking restoration of the contempt petition. This Court, however, refused to restore the contempt petition in view of the judgments of the his Court, which laid down that a contempt petition 2 which was dismissed in default could not be restored. Though this Court had rejected the prayer for restoration of Contempt Petition No.78/2008, this Court permitted the petitioner to take appropriate action in the matter. The petitioner has again filed this contempt petition seeking action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 01.10.2007. This contempt petition is not tenable in view of the fact that this Court had rejected the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of the earlier contempt petition bearing Contempt Petition no.78/2008. Liberty to take appropriate steps as are open to the petitioner in the matter would not mean filing a contempt petition again. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE