: 1 : cp.117.2011.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.117 OF 2011 Shri Narayan Yeshwant Pednekar ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mrs.S.A. Mudbidri for the Petitioner None for the Respondents CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE: JULY 13, 2011 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner is the original defendant and appellant in Second Appeal No.605 of 2005. The appeal is admitted and pending before this Court. By order dated 24.9.2007, this Court had referred the issue of tenancy back to the first appellate Court for decision. The hearing of the Second Appeal was to be taken up after receipt of the finding of the first appellate Court on the issue of tenancy. In the said order dated 24.9.2007, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo. The petitioner contends that the Respondents have committed breach of the order by entering into a contract with a third party under which the right to pluck fruits from mango trees situated on the suit land are sold on 12.4.2010. : 2 : cp.117.2011.sxw The suit was filed by the respondents plaintiffs for declaration that they are the owners and in possession of the suit property, while the defendant claimed to be a tenant with possession. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs were in possession. First Appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed and the defendant filed the Second Appeal. There is no finding of any Court that the Defendants were or are in possession. Even the order dated 24.9.2007 passed by this Court in Second Appeal does not show that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. In view of this, merely because this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo, the plaintiffs/respondents cannot be said to have committed any breach of the order if they entered into any contract for sale of the fruits. Thus, no case is made out for taking action for contempt of the Court. 2. Petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)