1 0812cp108.10.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.108 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.2723 of 2005 (P) (Dilip s/o Sanpatrao Ambekar and another v. Murlidhar Swamy Devasthan Panch Committee and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri J.S. Mokadam, Advocate for Respondent No.7. Shri R.M. Pande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.8(a) and 8(d). Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 8 th December, 2011 1. On 31-1-2006, the Division Bench of this Court passed an order on Civil Application No.7895 of 2005 filed in Writ Petition No.2723 of 2005. The said order is reproduced below : “ Heard. Mr. Phadnaik, learned Advocate, appears for Respondent No.1, having substituted Mr. A.B. Chaudhary, learned Advocate, who was earlier appearing for Respondent no.1. Mr. Bhangde, learned Advocate, appears for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader appears for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the newly added 2 0812cp108.10.odt Respondent No.6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent no.1 wants time to file reply. In the meantime, parties would maintain status quo as on date.” 2. It is pointed out by Shri Mokadam, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7, that respondent No.1 filed reply vide Stamp No.994 of 2006 in the month of February, 2006. As a result of it, the interim order of status quo granted by this Court stood vacated. The averment in the contempt petition is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have sold the property on 27-4-2007. He further submits that the order of status quo operated against respondent Nos.2 and 3, who have expired, and their names are deleted as per the order dated 17-2-2011. In view of this, the contempt petition has abated. It is the further submission that the writ petition was dismissed in the month of December, 2006 and when the sale-deed was executed on 27-4-2007, the writ petition was dismissed – though it was restored subsequently. It is further pointed out that the application on which the order of status quo was passed, was disposed of by this Court on 17-6-2008 as infructuous. 3. In spite of several opportunities, none appears for the petitioner. 4. The factual position pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.7, which is reproduced above, is not disputed. In view of this, no case is made out by the petitioners. 3 0812cp108.10.odt 5. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl