1 CP433.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.433 OF 2014

IN

REGULAR CIVIL SUIT NO.1786 OF 2012

1

Shaikh Nawab s/o. Shaikh Bashir

Qurehi, age 45 years, occ.

Business, r/o. Shillekhana, Tq.

and Dist.Aurangabad

:

..Petitioner

V E R S U S

1

G.D.Kolekar, Police Inspector,

Kranti Chowk Police Station,

Aurangabad

2

Niraman Bharti Land Mark Pvt.

Ltd., through it's Director –

Ranjeet s/o. Ashok Darakh, age

40 years, occ.Business, r/o.

Above Ashok Restaurant, Nirala

Bazar, Aurangabad

3

Nasher Khan s/o. Abddul Rahim

Khan, age 54 years, occ.

Business, r/o. In front of Moon

Light Hotel, Nutan Colony,

Aurangabad

:

Respondents

Mr.R.D.Biradar, advocate for petitioner

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

ORDER RESERVED ON : JANUARY 28, 2015

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 11, 2015

PER COURT :

Heard.

2 CP433.odt

2]

Perused the written notes of arguments.

3]

The present petitioner filed a suit for

perpetual

injunction

for

restraining

the

respondent nos.2 and 3 from disturbing the

peaceful possession of the petitioner in the suit

property and further not to make any construction

over the same.

4]

Learned 15^th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division,

Aurangabad granted ex-parte temporary injunction

in the application for interim relief on the same

lines. It appears that said application could not

be heard on merit and present petitioner has filed

an application for continuation of the “status-

quo” until further orders and that was granted by

the learned Judge.

5]

In the present petition for taking action

3 CP433.odt

against the respondents under the Contempt of

Court's Act, it is alleged that as respondent

nos.2 and 3 were going to make construction on the

said property, son of the present petitioner had

filed a complaint before the police authority on

10^th June, 2014. Despite this, respondent no.1 –

G.D.Kolekar, Police Inspector, has issued notice

under Section 149 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure on 7^th July, 2014 to the petitioner and

his son. In the circumstance, it is submitted

that the respondents be punished for contempt of

the Court's order.

6]

When this Court has raised an issue as to how,

this petition would be maintenable in view of the

specific provisions of the Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of

the Code of Civil Procedure, whereunder, an

application for taking action for breach of the

injunction order can be filed, learned counsel

submits that in view of the provisions of Section

4 CP433.odt

10 of the Contempt of Court's Act, present

petition is maintainable. He relied upon the ratio

in the cases of Kalyaneshwari Vs. Union of India

and ors., (2012) 12 SCC 599 and N. Venkata Swamy

Naidu Vs. M/s. Sri Sri Surya Teja Constructions

Pvt. Ltd. and ors, 2008 Cri. L.J. 227.

7]

Reading of the ratio of these authorities

would show that present issue was not involved in

those cases. When an independent machinery for

dealing with the grievance is already provided for

by the Code of Civil Procedure and when there is

no special circumstance to take any suo-motu

action in the matter, present petition would not

be maintainable.

8]

The Contempt Petition is, therefore, rejected.

[M.T. JOSHI, J.]

5 CP433.odt

kbp