Bombay High Court
Digambar Dnyandev PatilversusAbdullah S/o Abdul Majeed
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that no contempt existed as the status‑quo order was not communicated to the concerned authorities and the petitions were filed beyond the statutory limitation, and therefore dismissed the contempt petitions.
Summary
The Court considered two contempt petitions filed on 28 August 2024 challenging alleged non‑compliance with a status‑quo order dated 12 October 2020 concerning a mutation entry. The petitioners alleged that the order had not been communicated to the concerned authorities and that the mutation entry was altered on 15 October 2020. The Court observed that the order had not been communicated to the authorities and that the petitions were filed more than four years after the alleged contempt, exceeding the one‑year limitation period. The Attorney General’s Pleader indicated that instructions would be taken to implement the order, and no contempt could be established against the officer. Consequently, the Court dismissed both contempt petitions and listed the matter for civil revision. The order was to be kept in the file of the relevant civil revision applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents committed contempt of the status‑quo order dated 12 October 2020
- Whether the contempt petitions are barred by the one‑year limitation period
- Whether the order was duly communicated to the concerned authorities
Subjects
- contempt of court
- status quo order
- limitation period
- civil procedure
- mutation entry
- implementation of court order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34547
Diksha Rane 12 CP 580 2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.580 OF 2024
Digambar Dnyandev Patil ..PETITIONER
VS
Abdullah S/o Abdul Majeed & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.581 OF 2024
Ram s/o Changu Thakur & Ors. ..PETITIONERS
VS
Abdulla s o Abdul Majeed & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS
Adv. Ashok Tajane a/w. Adv. Ashvini Mehetre for petitioners.
Adv. Aditya Vijay Sawant for respondent no.8 in CP/580/2024
and for respondent no.11 in CP/581/2024.
Ms. Rashmi S. Tendulkar, AGP for respondent – State.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026.
Per Court :
1. The status-quo order dated 12 th October 2020 is
communicated to the respondent on 19th October 2020 and the
change in mutation entry has taken place on 15 th October 2020. The
contempt petitions are filed on 28th August 2024.
2. Prima facie, I see that there is no contempt of the orders of
this Court as the order of status-quo is not communicated to the
Page 1 of 2
19th AUGUST, 2026
Diksha Rane 12 CP 580 2024.docx
concerned authorities. So also, the contempt petitions are filed
beyond the period of one year from the date of contempt i.e. after a
period of four years.
3. Learned AGP submits that she will take instructions to
implement the order of this Court dated 12 October 2020. No case of
contempt is made out against the officer concerned for having
implemented the order dated 12th October 2020.
4. State to take instructions for implementation of order dated
12 January 2020 as the same is also passed with consent of the
parties before the Court.
5. The contempt petitions stand dismissed.
6. List Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2026 along with
Civil Revision Application No.60 of 2020 on 31st August, 2026.
7. The order passed today in the contempt petitions to be kept
in the file of Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2020 and Civil
Revision Application No.60 of 2020.
[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
Page 2 of 2
19th AUGUST, 2026
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/08/2026 15:51:05
Checking your session…