Chotibi Shaikh Karim vs Shaikh Ismail Shaikh Ibrahim And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5885 Bom

                                          {1}                             cp310-12

     drp
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                         
                  CONTEMPT PETITION NO.310 OF 2012




                                                 
                                  IN
              CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.210 OF 2011

     Chhotibi Shaikh Karim                                         PETITIONER
     Age - 61 years, Occ - Mutwalli of




                                                
     Dargah Tawakkal Shah
     R/o Malives, Beed,
     Taluka and District - Beed




                                        
              VERSUS

     1.
                             
              Shaikh Ismail Shaik Ibrahim
              Age - 30 years, Occ - Business,
              R/o A-1, Cycle Mart,
                                                              RESPONDENTS


              Subhash Road, Beed,
                            
              Taluka and District - Beed

     2.       Mohd. Rauf s/o Abdul Gaffur,
              R/o A-1 Cycle Mart,
      

              Subhash Road, Beed,
              Taluka and District - Beed
   



     3.       Maharashtra State Board of Wakf,
              Through its Chief Executive Officer,
              at Panchakki,
              Aurangabad





                                   .......

Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. C. V. Dharurkar, Advocate for respondents .......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

DATE : 6th OCTOBER, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Learned advocate for the contempt petitioner states that

{2} cp310-12

the liberty to carry out construction had been subject to

permission being obtained by present respondents - original

defendants, under order dated 14 th December, 2011 in civil

revision application No.210 of 2011 by this Court. Learned

advocate further submits that the contempt petition came to be

moved under an impression that construction is being carried out

by the respondents without permission from local authority.

However, it now transpires that the respondents - defendants

have been in receipt of permission for construction.

2. In view of aforesaid, learned advocate for the petitioner

fairly states that the contempt petition is not liable to be

proceeded with further.

3. As such, the contempt notice stands dropped and the

contempt petition stands disposed of.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

drp/cp310-12