1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 40 OF 2008 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 40 OF 2008 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 40 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2001 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 1996 IN REGULAR C.S. NO. 9 OF 1984 RATNAMALA DAYANAND MANJAREKAR ... PETITIONER (Org.Applnt) Versus SADANAND KRISHNA MADGAONKAR ... RESPONDENT (Org.Deft.No.1) Mr.A.P.Rege,Advocate, for the petitioner. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 29th January, 2008. DATE : 29th January, 2008. DATE : 29th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 2 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff and the sister of respondent. The petitioner had filed the suit claiming right of pre-emption to purchase the property held by the defendant on the ground that it was purchased by their father. Though the suit was decreed by the trial Court, the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed and the decree was set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Second Appeal which is pending. In the Second Appeal, she filed Civil Application No.684 of 2001 seeking direction that pending the Appeal, the respondent should not transfer the property or create any third party interest in the same. Pending the final hearing and disposal of the Civil Application, parties are directed to maintain status quo. The Civil Application is still pending. 3. By this Contempt Petition, the petitioner contends that the respondent has committed breach of that order by making additions, alterations and repairs in the said property. In my considered opinion, the alleged acts do not amount to contempt of the Court particularly because the purpose of the grant of status 3 quo was not to prohibit the respondent from making additions, alterations or repairs in the property. The purpose was only to see that the property is not transferred to third party which could affect the claim of the petitioner in respect of the right of pre-emption. Learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that the responded has not entered into agreement with the third party nor he has transferred the property. In such circumstances, I find that no contempt of the order of this Court has been committed. 4. Therefore, the Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)