1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.74 OF 2009 Narayan Hari Sogam & Ors. ...Petitioners. v. Shri K.B.Chougule & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. K.N.Kore i/by Suresh More, advs. For the Petitioners. Mr.A.R.Patil, AGP . For the Respondent Nos.1 and 4. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 22, 2010 P.C. 1 Deceased respondent no.2 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 5/1979 claiming right to two mango trees. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Rajapur. Thereafter, the respondent no.2, original plaintiff had preferred Civil Appeal No.2/1996. That appeal was also dismissed on 21.6.2002. Thereafter, he had preferred Second Appeal No.996/2004. On 25th August, 2005, this Court (Coram: D. G. Deshpande, J.) directed the Civil Judge Junior Division to personally visit the suit site in the presence of the parties and/or their advocates and to find out boundary between the two survey numbers and also as to whether both the trees are on the boundary or whether they are outside the boundary and if so, in whose field they are situated. It was directed that the learned Civil Judge would prepare the report and 2 declare it in the Court and that would be binding on the parties. With these directions, appeal itself was disposed off. 2 According to the petitioner, who was defendant in the suit, respondent no.1 Civil Judge Junior Division, Rajapur visited the spot alongwith the Taluka Inspector Land Records without giving intimation to the parties and their advocates and prepared the report holding that the trees are situated in the land survey no.43/30 belonging to the plaintiff/respondent no.2. Contempt Petition was filed against the respondent no.1 for not complying with the order of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that the main grievance of the petitioner is that he has no forum to challenge the report of the Civil Judge Junior Division which he prepared as per the directions of this Court on 25th August, 2005 and further even at the time of preparation of the report, the petitioner had no opportunity to point out correct position. According to the learned counsel, the report should have been directed to be placed before the High Court and considering that report and after hearing the parties, the Second Appeal should have been disposed off in view of the facts and circumstances. After some discussion at the bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this contempt petition with liberty to move appropriate Court dealing 3 with the Second Appeals for reviving the second appeal no.996/04 and to consider the report of Civil Judge and to decide that appeal accordingly after hearing both the parties. 3 In view of the circumstances noted above, contempt petition stands disposed off as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty to file appropriate application within 8 weeks from this date. 4 Certified copy expedited. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)