1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 109 OF 2009 IN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 33 OF 2001 (Dattatraya Ramloo Pattiwar .v. Shyam Kashiprasad Borele) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. 07TH OCTOBER, 2009. Heard Shri Anjan De, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sunil Manohar, the learned Counsel for the respondent. In support of the contempt petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out this Court’s order wherein undertaking was given by the respondent to the effect that the respondent would restore the suit land in its original form. It is on the basis of that undertaking, this Court allowed him to make construction. Shri Anjan De, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in breach of this undertaking, the respondent executed a sale deed on 27.02.2009 in favour of the third person and then transferred the property thereby making it impossible to comply with the said order of this Court and, therefore, the respondent has committed contempt of this Court. Per contra, Shri Sunil Manohar, the learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out to me that there is no order preventing the respondent from making alienation of suit land and in absence of any such 2 express order, no contempt has been committed by the respondent. According to him, even then the respondent has taken care of getting prepared an indemnity bond since he had furnished an undertaking to this Court to restore the suit land. This indemnity bond itself shows the bona fides on the part of the respondent in intending to comply with the undertaking and, therefore, there is neither any willful nor deliberate contempt of the order of this Court as canvassed by Shri Anjan De, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties, I find that there is no order preventing the respondent from alienating the suit land and in the absence of any express order, in the contempt jurisdiction, it is not possible to presume so many things. Consequently, it is not possible to presume that the undertaking would not be honoured or that the restoration would not be made merely because the suit property has been transferred by the respondent. The petitioner ought to have taken care of obtaining an order from the competent Court against the respondent in the matter of alienation of suit property. In the absence of any express order to that effect, it is difficult for me to infer that there is any violation on the part of the respondent in honouring undertaking or the order of this Court. Even then the fact that the indemnity bond has been brought into existence shows the bona fides on the part of the respondent in abiding with the undertaking in future and as and when occasion arises. 3 In the result, leaving the parties to work out their own remedies in the light of `principles of lis pendence’, I do not entertain the present contempt petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE *rrg.