* 1 * C.P. 286.2008 21.10.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 286 OF 2008 Ashok Shah & anr. ....... Petitioners : V/S : Suresh Bhailal Patel & Ors. ...... Respondents * * * * * Mr. V.R. Walwalkar i/by. Mr. Sameer R. Bhalekar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rasiwalh i/by. M/s. Siddique & Associates, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. S.R. Saudagar, Advocate for respondent no.2. * * * * * CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. 21 October, 2010. P.C. : 1. This contempt petition arises out of the order dated 08.08.2008 passed in Appeal from Order No.743 of 2008. By the said order, which is a workable order, the appeal from order was disposed off with certain directions in respect of each prayer * 2 * C.P. 286.2008 21.10.2010 made in Notice of Motion No. 1434 of 2008. The counsel for both the sides had agreed that no reasons be stated for the workable order. In the present petition, the petitioners who are the appellants in the appeal from order allege breach of the directions in paragraphs-2 and 3 of the order. The two paragraphs read as follows :- 2. “ Prayer clauses (a), (c), (d) and (h) : Mr. Rafique, the learned Counsel for respondents no.1 to 4 makes a statement that the respondents have not committed the acts alleged in the prayers and they will not commit the acts mentioned therein in future. The statement is hereby accepted. 3. Prayer clause (b) : It is directed that all the parties to the proceedings will park their cars at the designated parking places as provided under their respective agreements. It is clarified that the rights in respect of stilt parking spaces No.2 and No.10 form subject matter of Suits No. 2626 of 2005 and 2812 of 2005 and the same will be governed by the orders passed in the two suits.” 2. In respect of paragraph-2, the petitioners in particular allege breach of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion. Prayer (a) relates to common areas in the building of Antariksh. The * 3 * C.P. 286.2008 21.10.2010 common areas consist of open spaces appurtenant and surrounding the building, common amenities and facilities like meter room, pump room, lift room, common toiletes and water taps etc. By prayer (c) the appellants had sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from obstructing their ingress and egress to the common spaces and enjoyment of the common amenities. 3. At paragraph-10 of the petition, the petitioners allege baldly that the respondents have kept the common toilets, common water taps, lift room, pump room, electric meter room, overhead water tanks and common terrace in the building locked. It would be but natural for the occupants of the building to put the common facilities described above under lock so as to prevent the use by unauthorised persons. The petitioners do not allege any specific incident in which they had desired to have actual access to the common spaces or common facilities and had been prevented. The contempt petition being in the nature of quasi criminal proceedings with the petition being in the nature of charge, it is necessary that all the facts alleged to constitute the * 4 * C.P. 286.2008 21.10.2010 contempt are specifically stated in the contempt petition itself. The absence of the particulars constituting the act of contempt, render the charge of contempt vague. 4. The second allegation of contempt relating to paragraph-3 of the order dated 8th August, 2008 is stated in paragraph-12 of the petition. It is alleged that the respondent no.1 has parked his car at parking space-11 and respondent no.3 has parked his car in parking space no.7. According to the petitioners, none of these parking spaces belong to respondents no.1 and 3. It is not the case of the petitioners that these two parking spaces belong to them. The owners of these two parking spaces have not raised any complaints or grievance whatsoever. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the second allegation also. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]