1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.5117 OF 2008. Nitin Suresh Parate and anr. .vs. Manishmukar Rabhulal Agrawal and anr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.P.V.Vaidya, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Dhote,AGP for respondent no.2. Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. Dated : 2nd MAY, 2009. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Small Causes court on 18/11/2008 and 29/11/2008. 3. The facts in brief may be narrated as follows - Petitioner no.1,s father had obtained a decree against respondent no.1. 2 The said decree was put to execution. In that execution of the decree, the petitioner no.1's father was put in possession of the suit property. While the said property was put in possession of petitioner no.1's father, the computer was seized by the bailiff of the said court. The said computer was handed over in possession of the plaintiff’s father on Supratnama. 4. It appears that thereafter the judgement-debtor applied for delivery of the said computer to him. Accordingly, the court issued directions to the decree-holder to produce the said computer before the court. The said computer was accordingly produced before the court but it appears that the judgment-debtor did not turn up to take custody of the computer nor his lawyers appeared before the court though repeatedly called. The court wanted that the petitioner should take necessary steps to see that the judgment-debtor takes away the computer. Since the judgment-debtor 3 did not, the learned judge issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the action for contempt should not be taken against him. Similarly, he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner no.2 to show cause why the action should not be taken against him as he was acting as a clerk without getting himself registered. These notices are under challenge in this petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent no.1. 6. It is apparent that in pursuance to the order given by the court, the petitioners had in fact produced the computer before the court. In fact, therefore, he had complied with the order passed by the court and there was no question of his committing any contempt of the court. If the judgment – debtor has not himself come to the court and the petitioner was unable to find out his address, the decree-holder could not have 4 been put to any kind of fault. It was for the judgment – debtor to come before the court voluntarily to take away the computer since he has himself moved an application for delivery of computer to him. Simply because the petitioner did not take steps to see that the judgment-debtor appears in the court, it cannot be said that the petitioner has flouted any of the orders of the court. 7. As far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, if petitioner no.2 was acting as a clerk without getting himself registered. An administrative action can be taken by the District Judge and there is no question of he committing any contempt for that reason. In the circumstance, both the notices of contempt issued by respondent no.2 against the petitioners are quashed and set aside. The petition is disposed of. JUDGE. chute 5