1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 42 of 2010 in Second Appeal No. 37 of 2008 (Pending) Smt. Arunabai Natthuji Gajbhiye Aged about 45 years, Occu. Household and Agriculturist, R/o Plot No.9, Shriram Nagar, Ring Road, Nagpur-10. . …..PETITIONER ...VERSUS... 1] Santoshkkumar Deshmukh, Tahsildar, Saoner, Dist. Nagpur. 2] Prakash Sahdeo Waghmare, Aged about 40 years, Occu. Havaldar, WCL Colliery, R/o Hindustan Talpeth, Chandrapur Area, Chandrapur. 3] Smt. Ratnamala Devidas Taksande, Aged about adult, Occu.- Household, R/o Somwarpeth, Behind Gajanan Temple, P.O. Hanuman nagar, Nagpur. 4] Smt. Pushpa Anil Fancis, Aged about Adult, Occu. Service, R/o Gardener High School Quarter, Behind Kinkhede's Bunglow, Civil Lines, Nagpur. …...RESPONDENTS. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Miss Choubey, Advocate for Petitioner. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. DATED : 25th February, 2010. The petitioner, who is the appellant in Second 2 Appeal No. 37 of 2008, files this contempt petition against the Tahsildar, Saoner, Dist. Nagpur and the respondents to the Second Appeal, alleging that respondent no.1 Tahsildar has willfully violated the interim order dated 11th August, 2009 by which, the parties to the appeal have been directed not to create any third party interest in the suit property pending the Second Appeal. The act of contempt alleged against respondent no.1 is that on the death of Smt. Sonabai Waghmare, the original respondent in the Second Appeal, the Tahsildar made mutation entries in the revenue records to bring on record respondents no.2 to 4 as heirs of deceased Sonabai. It is the claim of these respondents that Smt. Sonabai has bequeathed the property to them by a will. The petitioner is one of the heirs of deceased Sonabai. Miss. Choubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Tahsildar had knowledge of the ad- interim and interim orders passed in the Second Appeal. This knowledge can be seen from the order dated 16th November, 2009 passed by him. According to her, mutating the revenue records to show names of respondents no.2 to 4 as the heirs of Smt. Sonabai would amount to transfer of the property by Tahsildar, which is a contemptuous act on his part. By no stretch of imagination, it is said that the Tahsildar, by his order dated 16th November, 2009, on an application for mutating revenue records, has created any third party rights over the disputed property. He has merely performed his official duty. Also there is no order against the Tahsildar 3 for not bringing any change in revenue records. Further, perusal of the order dated 16th November, 2009 shows that the Tahsildar has taken due note of pendency of the Second Appeal in this Court and has given directions that a note of the pendency be made in the revenue records. In the circumstances, the contempt petition as filed is clearly misconceived. The same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE. Diwale