1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.244 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.527 of 2008 (D) (Prakash s/o Mukundrao Wekhande v. Tryambak s/o Yashwant Kharbikar and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri R.G. Puranik, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.T. Dhurvey, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 15 th March, 2011 1. The complaint in this contempt petition is that the judgment and order passed by this Court on 24-9-2008 in Writ Petition No.527 of 2008 has not been complied with. 2. Shri Puranik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has invited my attention to para 6 of the judgment and order passed by this Court, wherein it has been stated that the respondent No.4 agrees to execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner, provided entire balance dues to the extent of Rs.9,000/- are paid to the respondent No.3. He submits that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.9,000/- to the respondent No.3 on 24-10-2008. He also does not dispute that the sale-deed has been executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the 2 petitioner on 3-4-2010. He, however, submits that the sale-deed has not been executed within the stipulated period, i.e. on or before 29-11-2008. The present contempt petition has been filed on 7-12-2010. In view of this, it is apparent that the same is barred by limitation, as provided under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. Shri Puranik, the learned counsel, further submits that in response to this contempt petition, a statement is made in para 4 of the reply that the petitioner has obtained no dues certificate from the Secretary of the Society with fraud. He submits that the respondents are unnecessarily causing harassment to the petitioner and, therefore, that amounts to contempt of Court. 4. In view of the fact that the judgment and order passed by this Court has already been complied with by the respondents, the question of willful disobedience or breach thereof does not arise. The contention of the petitioner that the respondents are causing harassment, cannot be the subject-matter of the contempt petition. 5. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl