1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 201/2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2214 /2007(Pending) (Narendra Mahadeorao Niley Vs. Dilip Laxman Kulmethe and another) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.N. Badhe, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. H.R. Dhumale h/f Mr. Anand Parchure, Adv. for R-1. Mr. D.S. Agnihotri, Adv. for R-2. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 5 th MARCH, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondents for deliberately and willfully disobeying the orders passed by this Court on 25th of May, 2007 and 17th of March, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 2214/2007, directing the respondent no.1 to this petition to maintain the status quo. It appears that the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, in a revision in the matter of mutation proceedings, by filing Writ Petition No. 2214/2007. The writ petition came up for hearing before the Court on 25th of May, 2007 and the Court, while issuing the notice before admission, 2 directed the parties to maintain status quo. After hearing the learned counsel for all the parties, the ad interim relief granted by the Court on 25th of May, 2007, was confirmed by the order dated 17th of March, 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the grant of an order of status quo, the respondent no.1 sold a portion of the property involved in the writ petition, to the respondent no.2, by a registered sale deed dated 12/10/2007. It is the case of the petitioner that though the respondent no.2 was also informed about the orders granting status quo, the respondent no.2 had raised about ten cement poles in the suit field for the purpose of erecting a fencing. Thus, according to the petitioner, both the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are guilty of contempt as they have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court on 25/5/2007 and 17/3/2008. The respondent no.1 filed an affidavit-in- reply and tendered his unconditional apology for having sold the property to the respondent no.2 on 12/10/2007. It is stated in the affidavit that an order of status quo was indeed granted by this Court on 25/5/2007, but since the writ petition arose out of the proceedings for mutation, the respondent no.1 misconstrued the order dated 25/5/2007 to mean that the Court had granted status quo in 3 relation to the revenue entries, specially since the main dispute between the parties in the proceedings before the revenue authorities, was in relation to the recording of revenue entry. It is stated in the reply that there was no intention whatsoever to defy or disobey the orders passed by this Court. It is also stated on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the cement poles are not erected by the respondent no.2, the purchaser of the property in question, but the same are erected by the respondent no.1 so as to protect the property from animals and trespassers. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 stated that the respondent no.1 would not erect the fencing on the property in question in view of the order of status quo granted by this Court on 25/5/2007 as the respondent no.1 has now realized that the order of status quo passed by this Court on 25/5/2007 is as regards the condition of the property as also the status of the property. The respondent no.2 has also presented affidavit in the Court today. The same is accepted on record. It is stated in the affidavit that the respondent no.2 has not erected the poles on the property in question and the poles are erected by the respondent no.1 on his property. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 states that the respondent no.2 was not aware of the grant of the 4 order of status quo in the writ petition on 25/5/2007 and, therefore, there was no question of the respondent no.2 disobeying the order passed by this Court on 25/5/2007, by purchasing the suit property. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the respondent no.2 cannot be held guilty of contempt. It appears from the prayer clause in the Writ Petition No. 2214/2007 that the interim relief sought by the petitioner was not only as regards the mutation entries, but an interim order was also sought against the respondent no.1 to this contempt petition, who was the respondent no.3 therein, that he be restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property, during the pendency of the petition. Thus, by the order of status quo, the respondent no.1 was prohibited from selling the suit property to any third party, during the pendency of the petition. It, however, can be believed that the respondent no.1 has misconstrued the order passed by this Court on 25/5/2007, as the writ petition arose out of the orders passed by the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings and the respondent no.1 believed that the order of status quo was only as regard the mutation entry and had nothing to do with the right of the respondent no.1 to sell the property to third party. In any case, the 5 learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that the respondent no.1 who is present in the Court, has volunteered to compensate the petitioner by paying a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, for the inconvenience caused to the petitioner because of the misinterpretation of the order dated 25/5/2007 by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 should, therefore, pay the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by this Court on 25/5/2007 and 17/3/2008. The contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents are liable to be dropped. The notice dated 26/11/2008 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP