{1} cp295.09.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.295 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1617 OF 2002 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.101 OF 2002 Ramrao Begaji More, died through L.Rs. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.B.Ghadge, A.G.P for respondent no.1. Mr.Rajendra S. Deshmukh, advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 10 th March, 2011 PER COURT: 1 The petitioners are alleging violation of the order passed by this Court in Civil Application No.1617/2002 in Second Appeal No.101 of 2002. 2 This Court, while entertaining the Civil Application for grant of interim relief, directed stay of the decree passed by the first appellate Court in the Review Application, in respect of delivery of possession of the property belonging to original defendant no.2. The first appellate Court, while entertaining the Review Application, has issued directions to the petitioners herein to hand over possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff – respondents herein. This Court, while entertaining the Civil Application, had granted stay to the order passed by the first {2} cp295.09.odt appellate Court while dealing with the Review Application in respect of delivery of possession of the suit property by defendant no.2. 3 It is the contention of the petitioners that in spite of direction given by this Court to stay the operation of the decree, which is passed against defendant no.2, the plaintiffs are interfering in his possession and creating hindrance in cultivation of the land by defendant no.2. According to the petitioners, the act of causing interference in possession of defendant no.2, at the instance of plaintiffs, itself amounts to violation of the order passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 1617/2002. 4 The contention raised by the petitioners, in that behalf, cannot be accepted for the reason that this Court has merely granted stay to the execution of the decree so far as it relates to the direction in respect of delivery of possession by defendant no.2. If the petitioners have any grievance in respect of any act on the part of plaintiffs – respondents herein, which amounts to interference in the possession, they have liberty to approach the appellate Court for securing appropriate orders. This Contempt Petition is not entertainable. 5 Hence the Contempt Petition stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE ******* adb/cp295.09