IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 14 CONT. PETITION NO. 620 OF 2026 IN WP/4392/2026 Ramesh Shriniwasrao Choudhari VERSUS Hema Wo Vijaykumar Choudhari ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Adv Raviprasad Kalyanrao Ashtekar AGP for Respondents-State: Mr. S. K. Shirse … CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : September 29, 2026 ORAL ORDER : 1. The present petition is filed alleging wilful and deliberate non- compliance of the order dated 22/04/2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4392 of 2026. By the said order, notices were issued by this Court to the respondents in the said petition. 2. The then learned Assistant Government Pleader waived notice for respondent Nos.2 to 5. The present respondent No.4 is the Sub- Divisional Officer, Pathari. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathari, was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the said petition. While issuing notice, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application for adjournment of the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer beyond the returnable date. 3. It was directed that if such an application was filed, the Sub- Page 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:44656 14 CP 620-2026 Divisional Officer shall consider the same favourably. 4. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate that the said order dated 22nd April 2026 was continued by orders dated 30th June 2026 and 14th July 2026. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that despite such orders being passed by this Court, respondent No.4 decided Case No.2026/ROR/Remand/KAVI vide order dated 10/07/2026, without issuing notice to the present petitioner. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer was deciding an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The power is a quasi-judicial power. Perusal of the order passed by this Court, though it indicates that the application should be considered favourably, is not in the nature of a command or direction to grant adjournment compulsorily. 7. In that view of the matter, although the contention of the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Officer should have granted adjournment may be sound, it cannot be said that by refusing to grant adjournment and deciding the appeal on merits, the Sub- Divisional Officer has committed contempt of the orders passed by this Court. Page 2 of 3 14 CP 620-2026 8. Leaving all contentions, including the mode and manner of deciding the appeal without granting adjournment or issuing notice, open to be raised in an appropriate proceeding for challenging the said order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the contempt petition is dismissed. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 3 of 3