cp201.05.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.201 OF 2005 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.930 OF 2002 Abdul Bari s/o Abdul Rehman Vs. Mr.M.A.Waheed and others ........................................................................................................................................................ ..... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................ ..... Dr. R.S.Sundaram, Counsel for the Petitioner. Shri R.T.Anthony, Counsel for the Respondent No.5. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 01st DECEMBER, 2011. Civil Revision Application No.930 of 2002 arose out of the execution proceedings. In that civil revision application, this Court had passed an order on 5.5.2000 directing the non-applicant no.5 therein not to create any third party interest in respect of the House Property No.151 situated at Kamptee. On 6.5.2005, another order was passed in the said civil revision application, that the respondent no.4 shall not erect any permanent structure on the suit property during the pendency of the revision. It was noted in the order, that temporary structure in the compound wall raised will be at the risk of the respondent. The civil revision application was subsequently disposed of, holding that the decree in question stood .....2/- cp201.05.odt 2 satisfied. The question is, whether the orders which were operating pending the decision of the civil revision application passed on 5.5.2000 and 6.5.2005, were disobeyed or breached. Para-3 of the contempt petition shows that an oral agreement was entered into on 29.4.2005. In view of the fact, that the decree stood satisfied, the question of entering into an oral agreement looses its significance. So far as the non-compliance of the order dated 6.5.2005 is concerned, it was noted in the order itself, that the temporary structure at the compound was already raised and there is no averment that subsequent to the order passed on 6.5.2005, any additional structure was raised. Hence, there is no question of non-compliance of the order dated 6.5.2005. In view of above, the contempt petition is dismissed. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-