1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 136 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2796 OF 2004 The Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad ...Petitioner Versus Shaikh Ajij Shaikh Gafoor ...Respondents ..... Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the petitioner Mr. A.B. Gatne, counsel for respondent-contemnor. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This court in writ petition No. 2796 of 2004, decided on 8.6.2004, in para 11 observed thus:- “ Hence, the writ petition is rejected summarily. It is apparent that the order dated 18.7.2003 in writ petition No. 303- A of 1992 passed by this Court has not been obeyed by the petitioner. The Registrar (Judicial) is therefore, directed to forthwith initiate steps for contempt proceedings against the 2 petitioner.” 2 In pursuance to the notice of suo moto contempt proceeding, the petitioner viz. Shaikh Ajij Shaikh Gafoor petitioner in writ petition No. 2796 of 2004, has filed detailed affidavit in reply. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor submits that the original petitioner agreed to vacate the suit premises within three months subject to filing undertaking. However, undertaking was not filed, therefore, the undertaking to vacate the premises within three months is not complied with. Learned counsel further invited my attention to para 3 of the affidavit in reply and submitted that once alleged contemnor tendered apology, vacated the suit premises and handed over the possession on 9.6.2004, this court may drop the contempt proceeding. 4 Learned A.G.P. Mr. Dighe, submits that though undertaking was given that the original petitioner i.e. alleged contemnor would vacate the premises in question within three months, however, the said premises were not vacated and therefore, this court felt that the alleged contemnor has not obeyed the order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 303-A of 1992 on 18.7.2003. 5 I have given due consideration to the submissions of the 3 counsel for the alleged contemnor and the submission of learned A.G.P. I have also carefully perused the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the alleged contemnor. In para 3 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated thus: “I say and very humbly submit that I hereby tender unconditional apology to this Hon’ble court for the contempt of Court, as alleged against me.” In para 7 of the affidavit in reply it is stated thus;- “I say and very humbly submit after the rejection of my writ petition No.2796 of 2004, I have lost the possession of the suit premises on the very next day i.e. on 9.6.2004 in the execution of the Decree.” 6 Relying on the contents of para 7 of the affidavit in reply, counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor has specifically stated that on 9.4.2003 the alleged contemnor has handed over the possession of the suit property to the landlord. 7 Taking into consideration the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the alleged contemnor and more particularly para 3 and 7 of the affidavit in reply, in my opinion, further adjudication of this contempt petition would be a futile exercise. In para 3 of the affidavit in reply, 4 the alleged contemnor has tendered unconditional apology and in para 7 a statement is made that the possession of the suit premises is given on 9.6.2004 to the landlord. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no willful disobedience and deliberate attempt on the part of the alleged contemnor to violate the order of this Court. 8 In the light of the above discussion, contempt petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/