1 (909)CP.68.2011.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL/CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 68 OF 2011 Suresh Sadashiv Sakhare ...Petitioner Vs. Ramakant @ Ramesh Sadashiv Kothawale & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. M.P. Vashi, Advocate i/b. M/s. M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner Mr. A.I.I. Patel, AGP for the Respondent State CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. : 1. The contempt alleged by the Petitioner is against Respondent No.1 who is stated to be his relative and who lived in the suit premises along with the Petitioner and against two Judges of the Small Causes Court for passing an order to which the Petitioner has taken exception. 2. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 were entitled to a premises admeasuring 268 sq. ft. The Petitioner was allotted one premises. The Respondent No.1 was not. The Respondent No.1 filed a declaratory suit against the developer. The suit came to be decreed. In Appeal the decree was confirmed. It was sought to be executed. It was thereafter challenged in Civil Revision Application. 3. This Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, but granted time 2 (909)CP.68.2011.sxw to the Petitioner to vacate the premises subject to the Petitioner filing the usual undertaking before a specified date. This Court also modified the decree limited to 180 sq. ft carpet area claimed by the Respondent No.1 himself. The Petitioner made an application for apportionment; the Petitioner did not vacate. 4. That decree was sought to be executed. In execution Respondents 2 and 3 obtained an order for issue of warrant in respect of the entire premises. The Petitioner has challenged that order in a writ Petition. 5. Mr. Vashi on behalf of the Petitioner questioned as to how the Execution Court could issue warrant in respect of the whole premises when this Court ordered bifurcation. 6. In this petition for contempt breach, if any, of an order has only to be seen. It is on the application of the Petitioner for apportionment that judicial order is passed. The Respondent No.1 is not shown to be in contempt. The judicial officer performing his judicial duty cannot be stated to be in contempt of any Court’s earlier order. That order is only subject to challenge in accordance with law. It is already challenged. Hence there is no substance in the contempt petition. 7. The contempt petition is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)