1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.299 OF 2005 Chimanlal S/o.Bhagatram Notiani, Age-70 years, Occu-Business, Through its Power of Attorney, Shri.Vijay Narayandas Rizwani, Age-39 years, Occu-Business, R/o.37, Bhagya Nagar, Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, and others RESPONDENTS Ms.Netrali Jain, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent State Mr.P.M.Shah, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 12/04/2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, followed by the submissions of learned AGP and learned senior counsel Shri.P.M.Shah for 2nd respondent. 2. By the present contempt petition, the petitioner has alleged to take the action under The Contempt of Court’s Act against respondent no.2 and 3 for the alleged dis-obedience as narrated in 2 para no.7 of the contempt petition. It appears that as per the notice issued on 22/02/2010, 2nd respondent, before service was completed appeared in the contempt petition and filed his affidavit in reply, challenging the action initiated at the hands of petitioner on 3 grounds. 1) The contempt petition is filed by the Power of Attorney of one Chimanlal Bhagalal, who expired in the year 2006. It appears that an application was moved to bring the legal heirs of original petitioner on record, which was allowed on 07/12/2009 and directions were given to carry out the necessary amendment within the period of 1 week from the date of order, but as per these directions, the amendment was not carried out. In the premise, as the original petitioner is no more, then the Power of Attorney of the original petitioner automatically comes to an end. In the premise, there can not be a prosecution at the hands of dead person. On this ground, petition to fail. 2) that three appeals filed by the original petitioner were rejected by the 2nd respondent by ignoring the judgment dated 19/03/1982 delivered in the group of matters by the Division Bench of this Court, which is in connection with writ petition no.654/1980 alongwith several other petitions. If there is mis-interpretation of some judgment delivered by this Court while passing the order, the order is appealable and for that purpose, no action under the Contempt of Courts Act is required. 3) Last objection is raised that the contempt petition to be filed within the period of 1 year from the alleged date of contempt. It appears that this contempt petition is not filed within the stipulated period, hence to fail. 3 3,. Considering all these submissions across the bar, one fact is clear that before considering other aspects that this contempt petition is filed by the original petitioner through his Power of Attorney, as the original petition is no more, then his Power of Attorney do not stand, as well as legal heirs are not brought on ground, on this ground alone, the petition to fail. Second aspect urged on behalf of 2nd respondent is to be accepted that if the order passed by 2nd respondent is an appealable order, then for mis- interpretation of the judgment of this Court, will not amount to dis- obedience of order of this Court. On both these counts, the 2nd respondent succeeds. Contempt petition fails, and stands dismissed. Notice against respondents is discharged. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2010/cp299-05