JUDGMENT & ORDER : K.M. THAKER, J. 1. Having regard to the fact that the order passed by the Court in October 2005 is not complied in terms and spirit, this Court passed order dated 13.7.2018. The said order reads thus: "Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that despite order dated 4.10.2005 passed by this Court with reference to Final Plot No. 513Paiki the said direction is not complied. The said submission-statement is not dispute. In view of the said submission the respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall remain present in Court on 20.7.2018 and explain as to why the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 4.10.2005 with reference to Final Plot No. 513-Paiki is not complied. The learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall convey this order to the said respondents. S.O. to 20.7.2018." 2. In view of the said order, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are required to remain present before this Court to explain why the directions passed by the Court in October 2005 are not complied. With the said directions, the proceedings were adjourned to 20.7.2018. 3. On 20.7.2018, respondent No.4 Commissioner chose to not appear before this Court. However, at the request of Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel who requested for a day's time to comply the order dated 20.7.2018 (wherein the Court recorded request by Mr.Desai, learned senior counsel), the proceedings came to be adjourned to today. 4. Today also respondent No.4 Commissioner is not present. 5. An affidavit dated 23.7.2018 which is not made either by respondent No.3 or by respondent No.4 but by Deputy Estate Officer by Mr. Desai, is submitted on record. 6. By means of the said affidavit, the reasons for not complying the order dated 4.10.2005 are sought to be explained for the first time in 2018 i.e. after 13 years. In the meanwhile, any attempt, it appears, for modification in the order dated 4.10.2005, on any ground whatsoever including the ground of practical difficulty or interest of other parties or even conduct of the petitioner, has not been made by respondent No.3 or respondent No.4. 7. On the contrary, in March 2006, request for extension of time to comply the directions was made. 8. The request was granted vide order dated 7.3.2006 and thereafter the order is still not complied. 9. 7. On the contrary, in March 2006, request for extension of time to comply the directions was made. 8. The request was granted vide order dated 7.3.2006 and thereafter the order is still not complied. 9. Several developments and reasons are mentioned in the affidavit dated 23.7.2018 to offer explanation as to why the said order is not complied. 10. The fact remains that in the interregnum, neither respondent No.3 nor respondent No.4 or even the petitioner filed any application for modification of the said order on any ground whatsoever. 11. It also appears, from the details mentioned in the affidavit that the parties have tried to make same arrangement and adjustments amongst themselves and inter se and without informing the Court and without getting the order modified. 12. Such conduct by the petitioner and/or by the respondent authorities cannot be permitted or countenanced. When particular order and direction are passed by the Court in a proceeding placed before the Court, then neither the petitioner nor the respondents can themselves take any action or conduct in different manner i.e. in a manner contrary to or at variance with the order and direction passed by the Court. For such purpose request should be made to the Court to modify or vary the order. In present case, this Court passed order in October 2005 after considering the facts of the case and the submissions by the petitioner and the respondents. Having regard to the case of the petitioner, the Court issued certain directions to the respondents. Therefore, the respondents are obliged to act in consonance with the directions. If, after having instituted proceedings and after the Court passes any order, the petitioner enters into different arrangement or agreement with the respondents then such petitioner should first inform the Court about proposed agreement and seek modification or variation in the order. If the petitioner enters into any different arrangement or agreement with the respondents without informing the Court and without seeking modification in the order, then such conduct would amount to abuse of process of court. The proceedings before the Court cannot be used as a weapon to get certain action taken by the other side on the strength of the proceeding or on strength of Court's order. The proceedings before the Court cannot be used as a weapon to get certain action taken by the other side on the strength of the proceeding or on strength of Court's order. Under the umbrella of Court's order, the parties cannot conduct themselves in a manner which would result into variation or vacation of Court's order without permission by the Court and without modification in the order, rather without even informing the Court. Such conduct is impermissible. In present case, it appears that both the sides ignored this vital aspect and conducted themselves in a manner which lessens the Court's order as well as dignity and honour. The petitioner is, of course, not an exception and such conduct at the end of the petitioner also cannot be tolerated, but respondent Nos.3 and 4 are expected to behave with more discretion and sense of responsibility and with proper regard to the Court's proceeding and order and manner befitting to their chair and position. In present case, unfortunately, respondent Nos.3 and 4 lost sight of this vital aspect. 13. Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel submitted that thought the Commissioner is not present, the Deputy Commissioner, who is delegated power of Commissioner, is present. 14. Neither Deputy Commissioner nor respondent No.4 has made any application seeking exemption from the order dated 13.7.2018. The said respondents have also not clarified, until now, as to why and more particularly why any step to seek modification in the order dated 4.10.2005 were not taken by respondent No.3 or respondent No.4, if there was justification, which is now sought to be urged-only after the Court passed the order dated 13.7.2015. 15. The affidavit filed by the Deputy Estate Officer is taken on record. So as to enable the petitioner to file counter, time is granted. S.O. to 27.7.2018. 16. It is expected that respondent No.3 will remain present on next date of hearing so that any other order for non-compliance of the order may not have to be passed. 17. So far as Civil Application No.1 of 2017 (Civil Application No.584 of 2017) is concerned, it will be considered along with this petition.