HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONTEMPT CASE (Ct No. 208/2^09 PETITIONERS RESPQNDENTS 1 Satish Bhatt, aged about 47 years, son of Late Ambika Prasa Bhatt, 2 Rajendra Kumar Bhatt, aged about 46 years, son of late Ambika Prasad Bhatt Petitioners 1 & 2 are r/o Village Tendubhatha, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G). 3 Lalaram Bhatt, son of Thansingh Bhatt, aged about 70 years, R/o Kumhipara, Tahsil Berla, District Vs. 1 R. P. Aanchla, Tahsildar, Saja, District Durg (C.G). 2 Raimum Bai, widow of Late Fattelal, aged about 35 years, Resident of Village Tendubhatha, Tahsil Saja, DistrictDurg(C.G). CONTEMPT PETITION UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 RBAD WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. P.P. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Suresh Verma, counsel for respondent no.l. ORAL ORDER (17.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J, Heard. Petitioners 1 85 2 are the sons of Sunaina Bai, who was respondent no.l in Second Appeal No.429/2002. Sunaina Bai and Naina Bai were two respondents in Second Appeal, who were the plaintiffs. The second appeal was filed by defendants 1 & 2 namely -J Cont. Case (C) No.208/2009 Raimun Bai and Kailash Bai. In the said appeal, this Court passed an order dated 13.8.2008 in the following manner: "As a temporary measure, it is ordered that the order dated 10.04.2008 passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Saja, in Revenue Case No.03/2007-08 shall not be given effect to till the next date of hearing/' The contempt petition was filed on the ground that this order was violated by the Tahsildar as he undertook further proceedings. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent no.l i.e., the concerned Tahsildar. He has submitted in the reply that on account of wrong impression that the interim order granted on 13.8.2008 was not continued after the next date of hearing, he undertook the proceeding but when he came to know about the continuation of the interim order, he reviewed all his earlier orders and thus has complied the order of this Court in lefter and spirit. The copy of the order sheets have also been filed along-with the reply. Since the quasi judicial authority has taken a defence thaf under a wrong impression, he proceeded with the case and thereafter rectified the wrongs committed by him, in the opinion of this court, the same appears to be a reasonable explanation given by the said authority. Mr. P.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now the position is as it was on 17.01.2003. In view of the above, particularly, in view of the explanation given by respondent no.l, I am not inclined to proceed further in the matter of contempt against him. Therefore, the contempt proceedings against respondent no.l are dropped at this stage. The show cause issued against him on 17.07.2009 stands discharged. —ssinhs