( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 286 OF 2009 Sidharth s/o. Tulshiram Kamble and anr. .. Petitioners Versus Shri Eknath Rajaram Dawle and ors. .. Respondents Shri S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 16.09.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for the petitioners. The petitioners' case is that the respondents have violated the order passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur, bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 601 of 1998, decided on 12.09.2006. The learned Civil Judge, thereby restrained the respondents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs/petitioners until the plaintiffs/petitioners are dispossessed in due course of law. ( 2 ) 2. The petitioners in para 7 and 8 of the petition have averred as follows:- "7. The petitioners submit that, the respondent authority on 07.09.2009 have visited to the suit area and requested to present petitioner to remove the encroachment as well as they recorded the statement of Kusum Bhatlavande. The petitioners further submit that, they also called the representatives of Dayanand Shikshan Sanstha, Latur as such they recorded their statement that all shops are situated in their premises and they are the tenants over the plot accordingly, they are paying the rents of their premises. Even thereafter, the respondent authorities asked the petitioners to evict the premises thereafter, on very same day i.e. 07.09.2009 disclosed this fact to their superior authority by way of filing an application. They further state that, the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur in RCS No. 601/1998 directed not to dispossess the present petitioner without following due procedure of law vide its decision and order dated 12.09.2006. 8. The petitioners submit that, the respondent herein taking the action against the present petitioner without giving any notice or giving an opportunity of hearing, they are evicted the premises, which is occupied by present petitioner. The respondents have not complied with the decision and order dated 12.09.2006 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 601/1998. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are being a competent authority had also not act as per the direction issued by Hon'ble Court. As such, the respondents also made as a party to this Contempt Petition. Thus, the respondent herein have intentionally and deliberately have not obeyed the order passed by the Hon'ble Court and thus, committed the contempt ( 3 ) of order dated 12.09.2006 passed by the Ld., Jt. C.J.S.D., Latur. Therefore, the present petitioners are approaching this Hon'ble Court by filing the present contempt petition under Article 215 of Constitution of India." (sic) 3. After hearing Adv. Shri Urgunde, it does not appear that the petitioners are evicted. The learned advocate produced two documents on record while arguing the matter. They are taken on record and marked "X1" and "X2". "X2" is a document dated 07.09.2009 and it is an application made by the present petitioners to the Collector. Therein they alleged that without proceeding as per the decision of the suit, the Collector through is Officers has got the property measured through the Office of Land Records and no notice was given to the petitioners. It is also alleged that both the petitioners were tenants of Dayanand Education Society and some receipt were also produced. It is warned therein that if the measurements are taken without notice, contempt petition will be filed in the High Court. Other document "X1" is dated 08.09.2009. It is stated therein that without complying with the directions of the Court and without giving notice, the Office of Land Records have measured the land and asked the petitioners to vacate the premises and therefore ( 4 ) there was violation. If we consider decree of the Civil Court, it is clear that, what was prevented is dispossession of the petitioners without following due procedure and it does not appear from either documents X1, X2 or averments that the petitioners were dispossessed. Taking measurement of land for further proceeding for eviction in due course of law cannot be said to be contempt of Court. 4. Not being satisfied that there is contempt of Court, this petition is dismissed. In case, there is dispossession otherwise than due course of law, the petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/cp286.09