vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.262 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.262 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.262 OF 2007 Ashok Kumar Ramdeo Yadav ... Petitioner V/s. Dharmaraj Roopa Yadav & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.P. Mishra for Petitioner Mr.R.V. Singh for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JULY 24, 2008 JULY 24, 2008 JULY 24, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This petition has been filed contending there is a contempt of the order passed by the City Civil Court dated 19.11.2003. While dismissing the appeal and denying the reliefs under prayer clauses (a) and (b), the City Civil Court had passed the following order in respect of prayer clause (c). ".. In so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, the following decree is being passed i.e. to say plaintiffs shall not dispossess the defendants from the suit premises, and defendants also shall not dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit premises. Whether to divide the suit premises by actual meets and bound or to use the suit premises jointly for carrying on their respective business is left to plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 who have right in the tenancy which is created by the Bombay Municipal Corporation." 2. An affidavit has been filed by the Respondent contending that part of the premises had been demolished : 2 : because of road widening and that the respondent had not in any manner dispossessed the petitioner. 3. In my opinion, the issues regarding possession cannot be decided in a contempt petition. The contention of dispossession has been strongly controverted by the respondent and in my view, therefore, there is no contempt. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any action taken by the respondent, he has several remedies to redress his grievance in accordance with law. 4. Petition rejected.