1 CP-442-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 442 OF 2010 IN S.C. SUIT NO. 5283 OF 1985 Suryakant Shivlal Parmar ... Petitioner Vs. Chandrakant C. Patel & Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Jahan Ara Sarkoht,Advocate, for the petitioner. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 14th October, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. A decree of declaration of possession and perpetual injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner in S.C. Suit no.5283 of 1985 by the City Civil Court. The contention of the petitioner is that inspite of the perpetual injunction, the respondents are disturbing and obstructing the possession and running of the business. This can be squarely taken care of during execution under Order XXI Rule 32, C.P.C. Therefore, I do not see any reason to invoke the powers under the Contempt of Court Act. The Petition is dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)