FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 89 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.: 8383 OF 2006 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Amol Gandhi for the Petitioner who points out copy of the Civil Application No.7773 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.8383 of 2006. According to learned counsel Mr. Gandhi, prayer made in this civil application - prayer clause (B) restraining the Respondents, their servants from transferring, alienating or creating third party interest in respect of the suit property. This application was filed on 5th October, 2007. According to Mr. Gandhi this Court has passed an order on 4th October, 2007 Annexure-A, directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property involved. Despite this fact, according to Mr. Gandhi, the order has been flouted. This fact is communicated by Mr. Ravindra D. Nandapurkar to the Liquidator (Annexure-B, page 17). According to him, the order of status-quo has been flouted by the Respondents. 2. I have heard learned counsel Mr. Mundhe for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. K.B.Chaudhari for Respondent No.2. Mr. Mundhe, learned counsel points out that the status quo was FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. directed by the learned Division Bench of this Court on 4th October, 2007 and the matter was adjourned for two weeks. Said status quo was only for the period of two weeks. He further points out that there is no continuation of the said order. This contempt petition is filed on 14th March, 2008. Considering the submissions, in my view, learned counsel Mr. Mundhe is justified in pointing out the date of order, none- continuation of the order of status-quo and filing of the contempt petition. Apart from this, even on merit, in my view, no case of alleged contempt within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act has been established. Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Dated:29.06.2008 [S. B. DESHMUKH, J.] ans/89