1 CP-303.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.303 OF 2007 Dhruvkumar Sahadu Dhore & Ors. .... Petitioners Vs. Nitin @ Balasaheb Krushna Dhore & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Satyajeet Mirajkar for the Petitioners. Shri N.B. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri A.I. Patel, AGP, for Respondent No.4. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 23, 2010 P.C: This is a thoroughly misconceived contempt petition filed by the decree holders who could have executed the decree in the suit. They are before this Court only because while admitting Second Appeal this Court did not grant stay of the execution of the decree. Thus, the order passed on 10-3-2005 in Second Appeal No.805 of 2004 is sought to be made a foundation for approaching this Court in 2 CP-303.07 exercise of contempt jurisdiction. When this Court had said that stay of the decree was not granted, the implication was clear that the decree holders could put the decree to execution. Rather than doing so, they have filed this contempt petition which is unfortunately merrily making rounds of the Courts for the last three years. When Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for execution of decrees, only because persons do not voluntarily comply with the decrees, disobedience of decrees would not amount to contempt per se and it would be necessary for the decree holder to first have recourse to Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code to have the decree executed. The petition is dismissed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)