1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONT.PETITION NO.409 OF 2010 ,In FA/2749/2009 MRS. SANYOGITA N JADHAV VERSUS SITARAM GHANDAT CHAIRMAN AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.AM Karad, Adv. h/for Mr. Karkare S.D. & V M Lomte, Advs. Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr.SS Deve Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr.NV Gaware Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr.RP Bhumkar --- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21st NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties extensively and finally. 2) The petitioner has urged to punish the respondents for contempt of court for disobeying the order dated 5th May, 2010 passed in CA No. 10609/2009 and order dated 15.6.2010 passed in CA No. 8237/2010 filed in FA No.2749/2009. The prayer also attributes connivance to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, who was said to have been facing Contempt Petition No.284/2010. 2 3) In fact, as per the record, Contempt Petition No.284/2010 against the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has been dismissed and disposed of and the said Magistrate is discharged from the contempt proceedings by order dated 23.11.2010. The record illustrate, by order dated 4th May, 2010 in same Contempt Petition No. 284/2010 in the respective three Civil Applications, the alleged contemnor, the bank, is also discharged. 4) The petitioner filed First Appeal No. 2749/2009 before this Court and orders were passed on 5th May, 2010, extended on 15.6.2010,29.6.2010, which ultimately expired on 11.7.2010. The order illustrate, not to take coercive steps. The directions observed in para No.5 reads as under : “ The applicant/appellant is at liberty to seek appropriate interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Arbitrator. In the meanwhile, for six (6) weeks, no coercive action be taken and possession be not taken by the Respondent No.2. Present Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.” 5) The Respondent No.2 in the said First Appeal was prohibited from taking possession of the flat in question. 3 6) To repeat, these orders have been terminated on 11th July, 2010. 7) The present respondents are – police officer, ministerial staff, Assistant Registrar of Dadar Center of Courts, Dadar, Mumbai and respondent no.5 is a police constable. 8) No notices are issued so far as Respondent no.1- Mr. Sitaram and Respondent no.2 – Mr. Vijay Morye are concerned. The effect of adding the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 would not survive in the light of orders passed by this Court dated 4th May, 2011 in Contempt Petition No. 284/2010. 9) Several points are urged by Mr.Karad for the petitioner. However, reading the papers, it is explicit the Respondent No.3 – Assistant Registrar has no personal role. The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were acting under the directions of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to comply the orders recorded on 26th March, 2010 to take possession of the disputed property. 10) The subsequent application moved to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 14th May, 2010 was a request on behalf of the petitioner to set aside the order dated 26th 4 March, 2010. 11) At no stretch, reading these applications and orders, it can be said that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acted in contravention to the orders dated 5th may, 2010, which has been extended from time to time, which were in force up to 11th July, 2010. Even the Bank has not activated to take possession of the property till such restrain was operating against the Bank. 12) The acts and actions carried by Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, were since under the protective umbrella of the orders recorded by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, they cannot be and could not be singled out to face contempt proceedings. 13) There is nothing to demonstrate, they challenged the majesty of the court and flagrantly committed contempt of any existing orders of the Court. Consequently, the contempt petition dismissed, notice discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/