1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1179 OF 2008 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1438 OF 2008 ALONG ITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 197 OF 2009 M/s. Malpani Jain Builders. ... Appellant (Org. Plaintiff) Vs. Smt. Kusum Simon Grimale &Ors. ... Respondents (Org.defendants) WITH CONTEMPT PETITON NO. 197 OF 2009 M/s. Malpani Jain Builders. ... Petitioner vs. M/s. Niraj Builders & Ors. ... Respndents Mr. Shriram S.Kulkarni, Advocate, for the appellant/petitioner. Mr. R.D.Soni, i/b. M/s. Ram &Co.,Advocates, for the respondent No.4.. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 18th March , 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Special Civil Suit No.77 of 2002 was filed by the plaintiff/appellant seeking directions to the original owner to execute the lease deed in favour of the 2 vendor of the plaintiff so that the plaintiff could get he conveyance executed from his vendor. Pending the suit, in 2005, the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 purchased the property from the original owner/lessor and started development and construction. The plaintiff/appellant filed an application Exhibit 45 seeking to restrain the respondents nos. 4 and 5 from making any construction pending the suit. By order dated 19.7.2008, the trial Court directed respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to maintain status quo till filing of the reply. After hearing the parties, the application Ex.45 was dismissed by the trial Court and against that present appeal was filed. However, by the order of this Court dated 18.11.2008, the order dated 19.7.2008 passed by the trial Court has been continued till further orders. Thus, the order dated 19.7.2008 is still in operation. The suit is pending for last about 8 years. 3. In view of these circumstances, with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Appeal stands disposed of with the following directions:- The trial Court shall expedite the hearing of Special Civil Suit no. 77/2002 and dispose of the same by the end of July 2010. The order dated 19.7.2008 shall continue to be in force till disposal of the suit. 4. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, C.A. No.1438/2008 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 3 5. The Contempt Petition was filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent no.1 in the Contempt Petition, who is the respondent No.4 in the appeal, had committed contempt by not complying with the order passed by this Court continuing the order dated 19.7.2008 passed by the trial Court as he continued with the construction inspite of the said order. 6. On behalf of the respondent No.1 -contemnor - Niraj Praful Shah, partner of the firm has filed the affidavit denying all the allegations. According to him, no construction is made after the order was passed by this Court. In para 19, he has stated that if this Court feels that due to some inadvertence any act has been committed, the respondent tendered unconditional apology for the same. In view of the fact that with consent of both the parties, the Appeal has been disposed of and the trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit, in my considered opinion, the apology which appears to be genuine and bonafide, may be accepted and no further action needs to be taken. 7. Therefore, Contempt Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) 4