1 CP NO.18 OF 2005 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.18 OF 2005 IN S.A. NO.1469 OF 2004 (Nilkanth Tulu Tavade and others vs. Mrs.Kokila Eknath Sapkale and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. V.J.Dixit, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.P.Chavan, Adv., for R.1. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:10-12-2010 1. Heard. In Second Appeal, on 21st July, 2004, based on statement of the learned Senior Counsel, this Court passed following order: "2. Learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Dixit, submits that notice is issued by this Court on 4.11.2003. The respondents no.1 and 2 are not yet served. He submits that the decree passed by the Civil Court is put into execution and 23rd of July, 2004 is the date fixed for handing over the possession of the suit property. This is the information received by him from the learned counsel appearing for the applicants in the trial Court." 2 CP NO.18 OF 2005 2. The status quo was to operate till 4th August, 2004. The very nature of the order illustrate, it is without hearing the respondent in the said Second Appeal. The noting of the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, also illustrate that there was no communication to the said Court of such orders even upto December, the date fixed for handing over the possession dt. 23rd Dec.,2004. 3. Mr.Chavan, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 illustrated, even if the order in the Second Appeal was protecting the contempt petitioner, however, it was not extended beyond Nov., 2004, as there is no such record available. Though this has been disputed, however, there is nothing to illustrate that such order of protection in favour of the present petitioner flowed as on 23rd Dec.,2004. Even if such recital flows in the affidavit of the respondent that will not be 3 CP NO.18 OF 2005 generating heat against the respondents to brand them in contempt. 4. The second aspect that has to be seen is, since there was ex parte order, that too based on the statement of the learned Counsel that, possession is to be handed over or lost by July, 2004, the Court passed such order. In fact, the possession was not to be lost by July 2004 but it was by Dec.,2004. 5. Taking survey of above facts, there is no element of deliberate omission on the part of the respondents to flout the orders of interim stay granted by this Court, referred above. The petitioner/appellant in the Second Appeal has his recourse available in the said appeal which he is at liberty to activate. No obvious contempt or deliberate omission on the part of the respondents. 4 CP NO.18 OF 2005 6. Consequently, Contempt Petition lacks merit, dismissed. Respondents discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/18-05cp