1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 37 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 198 OF 2007 The Chairman, Suresh Jain Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Society Limited, Jamner ...Petitioner Versus Shri Sudambhai Patil and another ...Respondents ..... Ms. Manjushri S. Shendge, advocate h/f Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the petitioners Mr. Vinod Patil, advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 4TH OCTOBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent No.2. 2 This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Civil Revision Application No. 198 of 2007. According to the petitioner, though the order of status quo was passed on 11.12.2007, the steps have been 2 taken by the respondents to adjust the amount of Rs.3,71,525/- which is kept in fixed deposit by the petitioner, towards recovery in pursuant to the proceeding by the Co-operative Court, which are decided in favour of the respondent No.2 Bank. In fact the status quo order came to be passed on 11.12.2007 and therefore, the fixed deposit amount of Rs.3,71,525/- should not have been adjusted by the respondents towards the recovery. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondents No.2. In para 8 of the said affidavit in reply, a statement is made that the office of the deponent after getting intimation in respect of grant of status quo order by the Hon'ble High court stopped the recovery and reverted the entry as it is, as it was earlier. Counsel for the respondent No.2 makes a statement that the amount of Rs.3,71,525/- is reverted back in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner society. Counsel further informs this Court that there is request for renewal of the said amount in the name of respondent and accordingly steps are being taken by the respondent No.2. In para 9 of the said affidavit, the respondent No.2 has tendered unconditional apology. 4 Taking into consideration the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 and in view of the fact that the amount of Rs.3,71,525/- is being maintained in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner by respondent No.2 Bank, the contempt petition is disposed of. Notice discharged. 5 Needless to mention that as long as the Civil Revision Application is 3 pending and status quo order is operating, the amount in fixed deposit of Rs.3,71,525/- which is kept in fixed deposit of the petitioner would be maintained by the respondent No.2 Bank. (S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/