1 CP NO.424 OF 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.424 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2009 1. Shri Abhay Sudhakar Kulkarni, Age 36 years, Occu. Service. 2. Shri Amol Sudhakar Kulkarni, Age 41 years, Occu> Through their power of Attorney Shri Shashikumar Gokulnath Joshi, Age 75 years, Occu. Retired, R/o Pachora, District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Shri Narendra Damodhar Gadgil, Age 46 years, Occu. Business, R/o. Block No.23-A, Shaskiya Karmachari Sahakari Gruha Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Mahabal Colony, Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. A.N.Sabnis, Adv., h/f Mr.Subodh P.Shah, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondent - party in person. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: Nov.,25th,2011 ... 2 CP NO.424 OF 2011 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent party in person. 2. The petitioner alleges that the order recorded by this Court in Civil Revision Application No.87/2009 to vacate the premises by 31st July, 2011, is not honoured inspite of an undertaking given by the respondent - party in person. 3. The respondent has invited my attention to his affidavit and a letter at Exh.B to the reply affidavit, received from the office of the Supreme Court of India wherein, on 18th July, 2011, while rejecting Special Leave to Appeal ( Civil) No.11263/2011 of the respondent Narendra Damodhar Gadgil, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted him time upto 3st Dec.,2011, to vacate the suit premises. Such leave was upon filing of usual undertaking in the Registry of Hon'ble Supreme Court within four weeks from 18th July, 2011. The respondent repeats in his affidavit that, indeed, he has furnished an undertaking before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in compliance to the directions dated 18th July, 2011. He submits that he has no reason and intention to flout and violate orders of this Court or undertaking given in the Hon'ble Supreme Court - he will peacefully 3 CP NO.424 OF 2011 hand over possession of the suit premises on or before 31st Dec.,2011 to the landlord/the petitioner herein. 4. The respondent - party in person submits, this contempt petition is a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner, as he has already indicated his intention to vacate the premises on or before 31.12.2011 pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After receipt of the landlord's notice dated 24.8.2011 on 26.8.2011, through power of attorney Shri Shshikumar Gokulnath Joshi, the respondent, consequently, approached petitioner's power of attorney holder Mr.Shashikumar Gokulnath Joshi at Pachora, on or about 15.9.2011 and gave him internet copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.7.2011. He submits that for no reason he has been dragged in the contempt petition when the petitioner is aware of the extended time limit in favour of the respondent. 5. Accepting above position and pursuant to the record, the contempt petition sans merit, dismissed. 6. Considering the peculiar facts, as stated in the affidavit of Narendra Damodhar Gadgil, the petitioner, inspite of being specifically made aware of the extended time 4 CP NO.424 OF 2011 limit by respondent by personally meeting him, on 15.9.2011, as petitioner dragged him in the contempt petition, the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) to the respondent - party in person. Costs to be remitted upto 22nd Dec.,2011, either in this Court or directly to be paid to the respondent Narendra Damodhar Gadgil. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/424-11cp