1 C.P.NO.158/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 158 OF 2011 ,In WP/1387/2010 BHASKARRAO GOPALRAO DESHMUKH AND ORS VERSUS SUBHASH SAKHARAM DESHMUKH AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioners :Mr. Patil Milind M. (Beedkar) Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Mr. V.D.Salunke. Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 6: Mr. A.B.Tele. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: December 15, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard Mr.M.M.Patil and Mr. V.D.Salunke extensively. Vakalatnama of Mr.A.B.Tele for respondent nos. 5 and 6 taken on record. 2. The petitioner feels that the statement made on 10th August, 2010, by learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 ( binding on respondent nos. 1 to 4) is breached and contempt has taken place. The statement reads as under: " It does not appear that the respondents are trying to cause permanent damage to the suit land. They have made a statement that they will not create third party interest during pendency of the litigation. In this view of the matter, the concurrent findings of the Courts below need not be interfered with ...." 2 C.P.NO.158/2011 Mr.Patil submits that this order, or undertaking is breached as third party interest is created and, to substantiate, he invites attention to a letter purportedly written by Rais Kamoroddin Ansari Kausadiwala and Riyaj Abdul Khalek, who allegedly conduct brick kilns in Survey No.21/1. 3. Reading this letter of these two persons, even otherwise, will not dilute the situation as, in the pleadings of respondent Subhash and others, in Regular Civil Suit No.174/2006, in paragraph No.17, they have clarified that, in the disputed property there are brick kilns run by different persons in pursuance of the contract - lease with the defendants since last more than 20 years. This written statement is of 10.4.2007. In the light of this situation, the attempt of making fracture to the so called statement of the learned Counsel on the date of disposal of writ petition could not amount to contempt. Contempt Petition disposed of. Consequently, notices issued by this Court against respondents nos. 5 and 6 are also withdrawn. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/158-11cp