1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 187 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 188 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 189 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 190 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 191 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 192 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CONTEMPT PETITION O. 193 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 194 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO 195 OF 2009 Vitthal Khandekar & Ors. .. Petitioners. v/s. Ravindra Wagh & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Shri Amil Gaikwad i/b. Shri Rahul S. Thakur for the Petitioners. Ms. Geeta Mulekar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri A. M. Kulkarni for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : MARCH 19, 2010. P.C. The above Contempt Petitions have been filed alleging 2 contempt of the Judgment and order dated 31st July, 2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Swatantra Kumar (as His Lordship then was) and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.P. Deshpande. 2. By the said Judgment and order a group of First Appeals which included the First Appeals filed by the Petitioners abovenamed who are the Claimants, and the persons similarly situated as the Petitioners came to be allowed and the claimants were granted enhancement at the rate of Rs. 500/- per square meter except in First Appeal Nos. 1510 of 2006, 1511 of 2006, 1512 of 2006 and 1513 of 2006 where the claimants were granted enhancement at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square meter. The statutory allowances were directed to be paid on the amount calculated on the said enhanced rate. The above Contempt Petitions have been filed on the ground that inspite of the said Judgment and order dated 31st July, 2008, the Petitioners have not received compensation at the said enhanced rate. The Contempt Petitions are opposed on the ground that the judgment and order of the Division Bench is executable under order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and this Court should therefore not exercise its 3 contempt jurisdiction, by entertaining the above Contempt Petitions. 3. In my view, there is merit in the said submission made on behalf of the Respondents, if the Petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the Respondents are not abiding by the Judgment and order dated 31st July, 2008. It would be open for the Petitioners to adopt appropriate proceedings for execution of the said Judgment and order dated 31st July, 2008, which is a decree and this Court is therefore not required to exercise its contempt jurisdiction. 4. Hence, by granting liberty to the Petitioners to adopt appropriate proceedings for execution of the Judgment and order dated 31st July, 2008, the above Contempt Petitions are, disposed of. [ R. M. SAVANT, J. ]