C.P.No.175 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.175 OF 1993 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.277 OF 1986 Ganeshrao s/o Satwajirao Patil ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.V.Kurundkar, G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr D.G.Lathkar, Advocate for respondent No.2, absent Mr S.S.CHoudhari, Advocte for respondent No.3 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21st December 2011 PER COURT Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner extensively. 2. Petitioner feels that the order recorded by this Court in Second Appeal No.277 of 1986 on January 31, 1992 is flouted and hence contempt. 3. The order alleged to be breached is as under : “..The appeal is partly allowed only to the extent injunction sought. Respondents, however, shall not obstruct the possession and enjoyment of the appellant/plaintiff over the portion of land, which has been allotted to him as per the Commissioner’s map, since this map has been accepted by both the parties. His claim for partition, etc. is rejected. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.” C.P.No.175 of 1993 2 4. Barring the statement of the petitioner there is nothing before this Court to illustrate that the so-called construction activities carried by the respondents are on the earmarked portion within the limits of the plan and hence, contempt. Parties are inter se brothers, several questions of disputed facts are urged in the contempt petition. Consequently, even if there is some breach, which learned Counsel is repeatedly harping, it does not warrant to take action against the respondents. The notices issued are discharged. Rule dated 6.9.1993 discharged. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) (vvr/175.93cp)