1 C.A. No.4985/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4985 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2324 OF 2007 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.169 OF 2006 Inderlal s/o Tulsomal Kamora ... APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.H. Kasliwal, Advocate holding for Mrs. Netrali Jain, Advocate for applicant Shri D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for State ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 29th July, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Civil Application is filed praying therein to quash and set aside order dated 14.6.2007, passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No.169/2006. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, since nobody appeared for the petitioner on 2 C.A. No.4985/2007 7.2.2007, therefore, matter was not argued on merits and as a result, said contempt petition has been dismissed, so there is no adjudication on merits as such. Therefore, he would contend that this application may be allowed and Contempt Petition No.169/2006 may be restored to its original file. 3. I have carefully perused the order dated 7.2.2007, passed by this Court in Contempt Petition No.166/2006. Para 2 of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow : “2. It appears that the contempt matter is filed as Tahsildar, Nanded did not make necessary entries in revenue record in spite of the direction given by the Court and consequent upon the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court in his favour. It is submitted on behalf of the State that Zilla Parishad is necessary party as the land in question is in the possession of Zilla Parishad Nanded. Moreover, there is no direction issued by this Court or any Court and, therefore, there is no question of any breach committed by the present respondents. In other words, there is absolutely no cause of action to file the contempt matter. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed for want of merits, with no order as to costs.” 3 C.A. No.4985/2007 4. Bare perusal of para 2 of the said order would show that this Court had adjudicated the said contempt petition on merits. There are observations on merits in para 2 of the order dated 7.2.2007 in Contempt Petition No.169/2006. 5. Since the Contempt Petition is dismissed for want of merits, in my opinion, application filed by the applicant to restore the same cannot be entertained. No any legal provision is brought to the notice of this Court to entertain this application. Hence, application is devoid of any merits. Same stands rejected. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/ca4985.07