ca9651.05 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9651 OF 2005 IN CIVIL APPLICATION ST.NO.15126/2005 IN CP No.42/1995 IN WP/550/1990 ASHOK BANSILAL MUTHA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHRA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Mr. M V Deshpande/Mr.D.K. Kulkarni. AGP for Respondent(s): ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: August 03, 2011 ... Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners / applicants. The order passed by this Court on 2nd November, 2007 in C.A. NO.9651/2005 reads, thus: "Bhatta to be paid within a week, if Bhatta paid, returnable date is extended by two weeks thereafter. If Bhatta not paid within the stipulated period matter shall stand dismissed without further reference to the court." 2 It is the contention of the learned ca9651.05 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ Counsel for the petitioners that since the office objections could not be removed within a week from 2.11.2007, the contempt petition stood dismissed. Therefore, Civil Application St. No.15126 of 2005 was filed for restoration of contempt petition. Since there was delay in filing the said C.A., Civil Application No.9651/2005 was filed for condonation of delay. 3 It appears that on 5th December, 2007, the said application came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, as on today, the application which was filed for condonation of delay caused in filing application for restoration of the contempt petition, has been rejected and also Criminal Contempt petition came to be dismissed for non compliance of the order passed by this Court on 2.11.2007. 4 There is no any express provision to restore the contempt petition to its original ca9651.05 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ file. This Court in case of Savitri Sippy vs. Shashikant Ghorpade and others, reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 376, had an occasion to consider somewhat similar point and the Division Bench of this Court restored the contempt petition to its original file. The contempt petition can be restored to its original position by invoking inherent powers of this Court. 5 In that view of the matter, the orders dated 2.11.2007 and 5.12.2007 are recalled. The Civil Application No.9651/2005 and Civil Application St. No.15126/2005 are allowed. The Contempt petition No.42/1995 in Writ Petition No.550/1990 is restored to its original position. Civil Applications stand disposed of, accordingly. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) PLK/*