1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | CONTEMPT PETITION NO.30/2009 Shri S.S.Rathi,Adv.for petr. Shri S.K.Kadam,AGP for State. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 16/11/2009. 1] This petition complains about disobedience/breach of the order dated 19/11/2007 passed by learned III Jt.C.J.J.D.Hingoli rejecting application below Exh.5 in R.C.S.No.45/07 in which the present petitioner is the defendant and the order dated 15/12/2007 passed by Jt.C.J.J.D.Hingoli below Exh.5 in R.C.S.No.96/07, in which the present petitioner is the plaintiff. 2] It is urged by Shri Rathi, learned counsel for petitioner that one Manik Dattu Solunke r/o Sawad 2 has filed R.C.S.No.45/07 alongwith application for temporary injunction Exh.5 restraining the present petitioner who is defendant, from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff towards the suit land out Gat No.235 to the extent of 80 Aar. The said application was rejected by an order dated 19/11/2007 by the trial Court holding that said Manik was not in possession of the suit property. It is further urged that the petitioner has filed R.C.S.No. 96/07, in which an application for temporary injunction restraining deft.nos.1 and 2 therein from disturbing his possession over the suit property was also asked for. The said Manik is the defendant in R.C.S.No.96/07 and the learned Jt.C.J.J.D.Hingoli by his order dated 15/12/07 granted injunction in favour of the present petitioner, who was the plaintiff therein restraining defendant nos.1 and 2, their servants, relatives, agents or anybody claiming on their behalf,from obstructing and dispossessing the plaintiff from his possession and enjoyment of the property pending the decision of the suit. In the said order, specific finding is recorded that the present petitioner who is the 3 plaintiff, is in possession of the suit property. The learned counsel submits that in the light of these two orders passed by Civil Court, the Tahsildar Hingoli should not have passed an order dated 5/3/08 directing the recording of name of Shri Manik Dattu Solunke, R/o Sawad for the cultivation in Gat No.235 ameasuring 0.80 Aar. According to the learned counsel, passing of such order by the Tahsildar, Hingoli, is in breach of the order passed by Civil Court and hence there is contempt. 3] No doubt that in R.C.S.No. 96/07 the deft.nos.1 and 2 which includes said Shri Manik, are restrained from obstructing and dispossessing the plaintiff from his peaceful enjoyment of the suit property pending the decision of the suit. However, it is prima facie finding recorded by the Court in Application Exh.5. There is no direction of the Court that no further proceeding in respect of the suit property shall be carried out before Tahsildar, Hingoli in respect of entries in the revenue records. True that, as a matter of propriety, the Tahsildar should not have carried out such proceeding but passing of order in my opinion, 4 does not amount to wilful disobedience or breach of the order passed by Civil Court. Hence, there is no cause for contempt. The Contempt Petition is dismissed. (R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) umg/cp30-08