1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 124 OF 2009 Shri Kundalik Mahipat Lande .... Petitioner. Vs. Shri Murlidhar Mahipat Lande . .... Respondent. ..... Mr. D.M. Gupte, for the Petitioner. Mr. S.A. Sawant, for the Respondent ..... CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 13 th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. The contempt petition filed by the petitioner, who has an ongoing dispute relating to partition of the property involved in the suit and now subject matter of second appeal, is misconceived because no particulars of alleged violation of the order of status-quo of this court have been set out in the contempt petition. An endeavour was made to show that same are set out in additional affidavit. However, that is filed after the denials of the respondent are placed on record. Even the additional affidavit which has been perused be me does not set out much less demonstrate that any construction activity is carried out by the appellant after the order of status-quo has been passed by this court. 2 2. In such circumstances, on vague averments the contempt petition cannot be entertained. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)