1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No.25 of 2009 In Contempt Petition No.97 of 2007 In First Appeal No.699 of 2004 (Pending) (Madhavdas Jankidas Mohta v. Smt. Shrikumari @ Kusumdevi wd/o Krushnakumar Mohta and others) Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Applicant. Shri K.R. Lule, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 4th May, 2009 1. The applicant, who is the appellant in First Appeal No.699 of 2004, complained of disobedience of orders passed by this Court in the said appeal on 14-9-2005 and 21-12-2005, and so filed Contempt Petition No.97 of 2007. He has filed present application for direction to respondents to deposit in Court amount received as consideration for sale-deed dated 30-12-2008. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filed Special Civil Suit No. 58 of 1996 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha, for partition and separate possession of certain 2 properties, which were described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The suit was filed on 28-2-1996. During the pendency of the suit, on 31-8-2001, a memorandum of partition was drawn up between the parties, which had been referred to in the written statement as well as in the evidence tendered before the Trial Court. However, without referring to the document, the learned Trial Judge came to dispose of the suit by granting a decree in respect of certain properties mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant, the original defendant No.1, filed the First Appeal. 3. On 14-9-2005, since the parties stated that they wanted to make a sincere effort to have reconciliation in the matter, the proceedings were adjourned and it was made clear that the parties were to maintain status quo and not to create any third-party interest. Thereafter on 21-12-2005 again since the parties gave a solemn assurance to the Court that they would work out the settlement through mediation and file terms of settlement, the matter was adjourned. Interim order was directed to continue and it was made clear that the parties would maintain status quo relating to the property which is the subject matter of the dispute under two deeds of partition. Thereafter, respondent No.1 Shrikumari sold the property at Warora, District Chandrapur to Chintaman Balaji Tadas for a sum of Rs.4 lacs on 30-12-2008 by a 3 registered sale-deed. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that execution of this sale-deed amounts to disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 21-12-2005. 5. Respondent No.1 has filed the reply stating that the registered sale-deed was in relation to property, which belongs absolutely to respondent No.1 and that the property was not subject matter of the suit. The order dated 21-12-2005 was applicable to suit properties and, therefore, there is no disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The paper book in the First Appeal has been called and has been perused by me. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Subedar Devassy PV, reported at (2006) 1 SCC 613, wherein the Apex Court held that it would not be permissible for a Court hearing a contempt petition to examine correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a different view from what was taken from the earlier decision. In para 6, the Court further held that if any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which, in its opinion, is wrong or 4 against the rules. or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. The learned counsel for the applicant also drew my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurdev Singh v. Narain Singh, reported at AIR 2008 SC 630, about the powers of the executing court, which lays down that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. 8. There can be no dispute about the propositions on which the learned counsel for the petitioner relies. The question here is whether the order dated 21-12-2005 could be said to comprehend or include the property, which is sold by sale-deed dated 30-12-2008. There can be no doubt that this property is referred to in the partition-deed. However, this in itself would not make it subject to the order dated 21-12-2008. It has to be noted that this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo relating to the property “which is subject matter of the dispute” under two deeds of partition. Had the Court desired that status quo should be maintained relating to the properties under two deeds of partition, without qualifying such properties by the clause “which is subject matter of the dispute”, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner could have been accepted. But the qualifying 5 clause “which is subject matter of the dispute” would restrict reference to suit properties which were the properties under the two deeds of partition. 9. Jurisdiction for punishing a party for contempt would have to be exercised only if it is shown that the party could not have understood the order in any manner different than the manner in which the petitioner alleges. If it is possible for the alleged contemner to show that his understanding of the order permitted him to indulge in acts, which are alleged to be in the breach of the order, such person could not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution. Hence there would be no occasion for asking respondents to deposit consideration under sale-deed dated 30-12-2008. 10. In view of this, Civil Application No.25 of 2009 is dismissed. 11. List the matter on 22-6-2009. JUDGE Lanjewar