1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil (Contempt) Reference No.01 of 2010 (10 th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, J.M.F.C., Akola v. Ramesh Katkar, Police Inspector, and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri Mujumdar, AGP for Appellant. Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 13 th December, 2010 By an order dated 20-2-2010, the learned 11 th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola, has made this reference. The charge in the order is that in Regular Civil Suit No.216 of 2006, decided on 29-10-2007, by the learned 12 th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were directed not to obstruct or dispossess the petitioners from their cultivation and possession of the property, as shown in rough sketch map filed along with the plaint. However, the respondent Nos.2 and 3, in collusion with their mother, filed a false report before the respondent No.1 and also prepared a false document about 2 cultivation to the third person without any lawful right. It is further alleged that in spite of the petitioner handing over the copy of the judgment and decree, the respondent No.1 gave a notice dated 21-6-2008, directing them not to obstruct the cultivation of the respondent No.2 about the field survey No.133/2, having the area of 9 acres and six gunthas, and also directing them to bring an appropriate order or to make a complaint to the Civil Court. The respondent No.1 – Police Officer has filed an affidavit and in para 4 of the said affidavit, it is stated that in order to maintain peace, the answering respondent thought it fit to issue a notice dated 21-6-2008. It is further stated that there was no intention to act in violation of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The respondent No.1 has also tendered an unconditional apology. It is further stated that thereafter the respondent No.1 was transferred from Borgaon Manju to Dhanaj, District Washim, and, therefore, he could not take remedial measures. In view of the stand disclosed in the affidavit, it is 3 apparent that there was no willful or deliberate disobedience, or breach of the directions given by the Trial Court, by the respondent No.1. The contempt proceedings are, therefore dropped. Judge pdl