( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12795 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 234 OF 2002 Datta s/o. Kisan Gaikar & Anr. .. Applicants Versus Bapurao s/o. Kisan Gaikar & Ors. .. Respondents Shri S.V. Warad, Advocate for the applicants. Shri N.N. Shinde, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. DATED : 26.11.2010 P.C. :- 1. The present applicants, who are original appellants have filed this application seeking directions against the respondents to deposit the amounts of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- received by them under registered sale-deed bearing No. 318 and 319 dated 24.01.2005. 2. Heard Shri Warad, learned Counsel for the ( 2 ) applicants and Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. It is submitted by Shri Warad, learned Counsel that the present Second Appeal is admitted. This Court in Civil Application No. 4703 of 2002 vide its order dated 19.08.2003 had directed the parties to maintain status-quo as regards possession. Thereafter, the Second Appeal came to be admitted on 01.03.2004. According Shri Warad, the respondents/present non-applicants in defiance of the order of the status-quo, sold the property on 24.01.2005 by registered sale-deed dated 24.01.2005. They sold Gat No. 720, admeasuring 1 Hectare 8 R for consideration of Rs. 75,000/- and Gat No. 405, admeasuring 25 R for consideration of Rs. 25,000/-. The order of status-quo, which was granted, was continued. Shri Warad, learned Counsel submits that the order of status-quo was violated in as much as the possession has changed the hands. Shri Warad, learned Counsel further submits that the person who has committed contempt cannot be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his act. He relies upon a judgment of Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority V/s. Skipper Constructions Co. (P) Ltd., reported ( 3 ) in (1996) 4 S.C.C.622, so also a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Keshrimal Jivji Shah & Anr. V/s. Bank of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2004 Bom.C.R.842. 4. The present application is not in the nature of an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. nor is an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings. In- case, the applicants feel that the respondents have violated the order of status-quo granted by this Court, then the applicants have remedy to move under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. or to move under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Unless such proceedings are initiated the present application cannot be considered, in as much as, there is no restraint on the respondents from alienating the property. If the order is disobeyed regarding parting with the possession, as the order of status-quo regarding possession was in force according to the applicant, then the remedy is otherwise. The Apex Court in a case of Delhi Development Authority and this Court in the case of Keshrimal, referred supra, had observed that the party committing the contempt should not be allowed to enjoy the fruits. In those matters, the proceedings for contempt or ( 4 ) under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. were taken up and in light of the same, the observations were made by the Apex Court and this Court. It is settled law that the judgment of the Apex Court or this Court, cannot be read as Euclid theorem, they will have to be read in the context in which they have been delivered. If the applicants take up appropriate proceedings, the same can be considered. 5. In light of the above, present Civil Application is disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] snk/2010/NOV10/ca12795.10