1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 147 OF 2007 Shri. Govinda s/o. Natthu Dhobi and others ....Petitioners. Versus Suresh s/o. Chindu Shinde and another ....Respondents. Shri. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri. G.V. Wani, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 2nd December, 2009 PER COURT : 1. This petition complains willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 21st of March 2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 425/2007. By this order, it was made clear that during the pendency of the Regular Civil Suit No. 20/2005 filed by the present petitioners and Regular Civil Suit No. 142/2005 filed by the respondents, the present petitioners would be entitled to use the way for going to their field as per the panchanma executed by the Tahsildar, Jamner dated 9th November 2004. It was further made clear that it is needless to state that while using the way, the petitioners shall not damage the crops of the respondents therein. The panchanama executed by the Tahsildar is also placed on record. Thus, the writ petition is arising out of the rejection of application, Exh. 5, filed under Order 39, Rule (1) and (2) of C.P.C. Therefore, the directions issued by this Court, on 21st of March 2007 in 2 the aforesaid writ petition, are in the nature of injunction and therefore, remedy of breach of order under Order 39, Rule (1) and (2) is available to the petitioners. 2. Apart from this, the contention of the petitioners that the respondents are obstructing the petitioners while using the way for going to their field as shown in panchanama, is disputed question of fact. The petitioners, although placed on record the copy of the complaint made to the concerned authorities, the said complaint cannot be treated as evidence of the fact that the respondents have obstructed the petitioners. The instant contempt petition being quasi criminal in nature, the petitioners are required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioners further states that there is no denial of the fact that the respondents are obstructing petitioners. However, this denial does not appear and hence, it is not possible to accept the contention that the respondents are obstructing the petitioners from using the way for going to their field. 3. In view of the involvement of disputed questions of fact, this contempt petition cannot be entertained and the same is, therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp147.07