1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288/2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Shri Shrikant Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondents no. 3 and 5. Shri V. D. Rakh, A.G.P. for respondent no.7. ........................... [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J ] DATE : 10th FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Heard. 2 In long drawn litigation between the parties, execution proceedings were initiated. Since it was not complied, arrest warrant was issued against respondents by order dated 14th October, 2008. It was handed over to bailiff for execution. The bailiff furnished his report dated 17th October, 2008 seeking police protection for execution of warrant. The amount was deposited. However, it is canvassed by 2 Mr. Kulkarni that at least for 14 to 15 times, arrest warrant was issued against the respondents. In spite of there being arrest warrant, it could not be executed by concerned bailiff and there is obstruction for execution of warrant. 3 Considering nature of controversy between the parties, since remedy available to the decree holder before executing court are exhausted and in force, this court in its contempt jurisdiction will not be able to address the allegations and grievance. The applicant herein to resort his remedy before executing court. The submission from the respondents that the proceedings are being initiated by respondents before Apex Court, may be correct however, the parties will themselves take care thereof. 4 Contempt petition disposed of. [ K.U. CHANDIWAL, J ] tsk/cp288.09