:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1177 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1177 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1177 OF 2008 Ananda Sadashiv Patil & Anr. ..Petitioners V/s Shankar Raoji Patil ..Respondent Mr. P.D. Davli for the petitioners Mr. Vijay More for the respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 17TH APRIL, 2008 : 17TH APRIL, 2008 : 17TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard; Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 1st December, 2007, whereby the petitioners, who are original Judgment-Debtor Nos. 1 to 3 have been ordered to be detained in Civil Prison for a term of one month. 3. On an application made by the decree holder/respondent in execution proceedings, the petitioners have been alleged to have breached the :2: order dated 2-11-2001 whereby the petitioners were retrained from obstructing the respondent from taking water from the well in question to the extent of 1/2 share. The said order which is allegedly breached is of the Civil Judge,J.D. Shirala in Reg. Civil Suit No. 69 of 1996. There was no appeal filed challenging the said order. It is alleged that on 4th June, 2000 the petitioners have removed the electric poles of the plaintiff which were installed at the said well and have caused damage to the Starter, Main switch and Electrical Box and have thus breached the order dated 2-11-2001. Thereupon criminal complaint bearing No. 305/2000 came to be filed against the petitioners/judgment debtors on 26th August, 2004 in respect of the alleged breach. It is alleged that the petitioner/ judgment-debtors have thus committed Contempt of Court and the petitioners/judgment debtors were ordered to be detained in civil prison by the impugned order. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the evidence of the present respondent No.1/ original plaintiff at Exh.11 in Reg. Darkhast No. 37/2004 wherein in his :3: cross-examination, the respondent has specifically stated that the complaint filed against the petitioners/judgment-debtors was false. 5. The learned trial Judge has not considered this cross-examination which is the respondent’s own statement that his complaint was false. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 does not dispute this position. Thus there is no question of any obstruction having been caused or any breach of the order having been committed. 6. Considering the above facts the impugned order dated 1st December, 2007 is required to be set aside and accordingly is quashed and set aside. Writ petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. 7. Needless to say that in view of the disposal of the writ petition, the petitioners are relieved of the undertaking given by them pursuant to order dated 20-02-2008 of this Court. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)