1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 840/2009 Indrakumar H. Rathi vs. Omprakash B. Sharma and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- . CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 3 rd MARCH , 2009 Heard Shri Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the order of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia, passed on his application in Case NO. 51/93, for taking action of contempt. According to the petitioner, in present of the Hon'ble Judge, the defendants Advocate Shri M.R.Telang had made a comment “YAS CASE KABHI KHATMA NAHI HO SAKTA ( ). According to the petitioner, it was a “contempt” of the Court and therefore, he had preferred an application for taking action of contempt against the learned counsel for the defendants. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the observations of the learned Judge in para 5 are not correct. According to him, this was not a fair comment. The learned trial Judge should have taken cognizance and proceed for contempt of Court against the counsel. In the circumstances of the case, I do not see the sufficient reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge in not taking action for alleged contempt under the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit