( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 22 OF 2006 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 75 OF 2004 V. Pichandi Sole Proprietor .. Petitioner Shri Ambika Match Works Versus G. Chakrapani Match Works and anr. .. Respondents Shri N.G. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Surve, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 05.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri N.G. Kale for the petitioner and Adv. Shri Hemant Surve for respondent No.2. The impugned order which is said to be violated is produced at Exh. “B”. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:- ( 2 ) “1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Notice. In the meanwhile ad- interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B). 3. The learned counsel for the applicant hands over the samples of cartons of the product of the plaintiff and the product of the respondents. The cartons are taken on record.” 2. It is stated by the learned advocate Shri Kale that the panchanama of attachment of 500 match boxes was drawn on 14.11.2004 between 7.30 to 8.30 p.m. and the goods were attached from respondent No.2. There is also copy of F.I.R. which is registered on 01.11.2005. The F.I.R. is against driver and cleaner of Truck No. AP 03-U-1445 regarding attachment of about 440 match boxes. 3. The learned advocate for respondent No.2 states that though notice was directed the order passed by the Court dated 20.10.2004 was not served on respondent No.2 before 01.11.2006. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is deliberate violation of the order. Nothing is produced on record to show that prohibitory order was served ( 3 ) on respondent No.2. Therefore, in absence of the same cognizance of this Contempt Petition cannot be taken of. 4. Therefore, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/cp22.06