1 Contempt Petition No.447/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.447 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.116 OF 2008 Shahnawazkhan s/o Abdul Rahemankhan ... PETITIONER VERSUS Smt.Azarunnisa Begum w/o Mohd. Abdul Rauf and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri P.F. Patni, Advocate for petitioner Shri A.D. Kasliwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 18th July, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Contempt Petition alleges disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 21.8.2009 in Appeal from Order No. 116/2008. According to the counsel for the petitioner, consequent to the undertaking given to this Court, the respondents have constructed on the suit premises. Learned counsel invited my attention to Pages 31, 32 and 49 of the compilation, and submitted that the affidavit filed before this Court by the respondents in pursuant to the notices issued to them is not the correct position. There is a new construction, after giving undertaking, the 2 Contempt Petition No.447/2010 compound wall is being constructed even according to the affidavit filed by the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for respondents invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed to this Contempt Petition, in particular paras 9 and 10 of the affidavit-in-reply. The relevant portion which he read out is as under : 9. . . . . . . .. I further say that, bare perusal of the notice and panchanama shows that, there is no construction done, only laying paver blocks is shown in the map. I further say that, the entire plot is open and there exists only the rooms of which the reference is there in the written statement and sale deed. 10. I say that, the respondents No.2 and 3 so as to protect the open plot have laid down paver blocks and the said activity cannot be termed as construction, as alleged by the petitioner. I further say that, the respondents No.2 and 3 have given undertaking on 17.08.2009 in A.O. No.116/2008 is being followed and maintained with respect to judicial sanctity and judicial orders. The respondents No.2 and 3 have not violated or committed the breach of the undertaking and in future also the undertaking will be followed.” 3. In the light of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents in para Ns.9 and 10, in my opinion, there is no any willful disobedience as such. The respondents have stated on oath that they have not constructed any new room or building after giving undertaking to this Court. In that view of the matter, in my 3 Contempt Petition No.447/2010 opinion, the further adjudication of this Contempt proceedings is futile exercise. Hence, Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/cp447.10