1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 54/2009 (Gulmohar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. VERSUS Prabhakar Ramchandra Dandekar & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.D. Khati, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 24, 2009. Heard Shri Khati, the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for flouting and disobeying the order passed by the High Court on 07.08.2008 in First Appeal No.580/2008. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while admitting the first appeal by an order dated 07.08.2008, the High Court had also granted interim stay of possession on furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in spite of the order granting interim stay of possession, the 2 respondent nos.1 and 2 applied to the revenue authorities for correction of the mutation entries and the authorities also corrected the entries in favour of respondent nos.1 and 2. This act on the part of the respondents, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, result in willful non-compliance of the order dated 07.08.2008, by which interim stay of possession was granted. From a perusal of the order dated 07.08.2008, it is clear that this Court had granted interim stay of possession only on furnishing surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner had furnished surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court and, therefore, the interim stay of possession was in operation. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have dispossessed the petitioner from the suit property. Mere applying for a change in mutation entries and granting of that change would not result in holding that the 3 respondents have willfully disobeyed the order passed by the High Court granting interim stay of possession. Since it is not the case of the petitioner that the possession of the petitioner is disturbed or the petitioner is dispossessed, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE