1 C.P. No. 442 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 442 OF 2010 in WRIT PETITION NO. 25 OF 2005 1. Dilip S/o Lalasaheb Bhosale, Age 53 years, 2. Sanjay S/o Lalsaheb Bhosale, Age 51 years, 3. Dhairyasheel S/o Lalsaheb Bhosale, Age 45 years, 4. Vinod S/o Dilip Bhosale, Age 27 years, Above all Occu. Agril., R/o Balewandi (Bk), Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. Petitioners V E R S U S Smt. Sushilabai W/o Mansingrao Raje-Jadhav, Age 75 years, Occu. Household, R/o Adgaon- Raja, Tq. Sindhkedraja, Dist. Buldhana Through her General Power of Attorney – Shri Bhagwat Mansingrao Raje-Jadhav, Age 50 years, Occu. Service as Talathi, R/o Behind Post Office, Near Patel Saw Mill, Deulgaonraja, Buldhana, Dist. Buldhana Respondent Mr. Monish Nilwant, h/f S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Niteen Gaware, Advocate for respondent 2 C.P. No. 442 of 2010 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 8th February, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Contempt Petition is filed alleging that the respondent has violated the order passed by this order in Writ Petition No. 25 of 2005, dated 25th January, 2005. The order reads as under :- “(1) Heard Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioners, and Mr. V.J. Dixit, Advocate with Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate, appearing for the respondent (caveator) (2) Rule returnable early. (3) Record and proceedings be called. (4) The impugned order dated 25-11-2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik is stayed and the parties are restrained from acting on the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik. (5) If entries are already taken pursuant to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, parties are directed to maintain status quo in that regard. (6) Keep along with Writ Petition No. 108 of 2005. (7) Mr. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for the respondent, waives service for the respondent.” After this order was passed, admittedly taking advantage of the entries made in the revenue record, and which were directed to 3 C.P. No. 442 of 2010 be retained as they were, the respondent sold away the property in dispute to a third party. The directions in the Writ Petition did not cover and prohibit the respondent from selling away the property. It pertains only in respect of the litigation, arising from the mutation entries taken. Unfortunately the petitioner did not file any suit to prevent the respondent from dealing with the property in question or creating third party interest in it. There is admittedly no order preventing the respondent from dealing with the property or from creating a third party interest in it. The order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 25 of 2005, cannot be interpreted that it prevented the respondent from alienating the disputed property. It pertains only to the entries that were taken into revenue record. Therefore, the petition fails. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SDM*/CP44210/080211/ok