1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.210 OF 2010 Dr. Gulam Rasul Papabhai Shaikh .. PETITIONER VERSUS Hamed Khan Hafiz Khan & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri R.L. Kute, Advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : P. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 26 th JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Heard Adv. Shri R.L. Kute for the petitioner. He drew my attention to the decree passed by the 1 st Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal no. 165/2000 decided on 23-1-2006 whereby the plaintiff’s suit was allowed and suit for partition and separate possession was decreed. It was held that plaintiff was entitled to 1/3 rd share. Enquiry into mesne profit was also allowed. Said judgment and decree is further confirmed by this court in Second Appeal no. 504/2006 decided by this court on 17-1-2007 whereby the 2 appeal was dismissed. Decree of partition and separate possession stands confirmed in the second appeal. It is alleged that respondent no. 7 to 11 have malafidely executed release deed in respect of their share in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 6 and, respondent nos. 1 to 6 executed sale-deed in favour of respondent nos. 7 to 11 within half an hour thereafter. Such transaction would be governed by the principle of lis pendens. I do not agree with the advocate of the petitioner that it amounts to contempt of the court. The court has not passed any order restraining the respondents from alienating or transferring their shares declared in the partition suit. In this view, this contempt petition does not survive and accordingly disposed of. Contempt petitioner is entitled to avail any other remedy available to him under law. ( P. R. BORKAR, J.) dyb/office/cp210.10.odt