1 ao787-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FOR ORDER NO.787 OF 2010 Rajkumari Renuka Devi (alias Mrs. Renuka Bativala) .. Appellant v/s. Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Mr. Zal Andhyarujina with Ms. Duhita Leuis i/b. M/s. Thakordas Madgaonkar for the Appellant. Mr. Y. V. Divekar with Ms. P. Y. Divekar i/b. M/s. Divekar & Co. for respondent no. 1. Mr. A. R. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. .... CORAM : R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATE : JULY 20, 2010. P.C. This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur, rejecting the appellant/plaintiff's application whereby the appellant complained of breach of order of injunction. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The appellant had filed a suit against the Maharashtra 2 ao787-10 State Textile Corporation Ltd. , State of Maharashtra, Raja Mahendragir Dhanrajgir, Rajkumari Indira Devi, Mr. Humayun Dhanrajgir, Tejvangir Dhairyavangir and Adityavangir Dhairyavangir, for various reliefs, in respect of property which was subject matter of a bid invited by respondent no.1. This bid document showed that the site admeasuring 3100 square meters had been handed over to Dr. Dwarkadas Kotnis Memorial. On 25th September, 2009, the learned trial Judge had directed defendant nos. 1 and 2 to maintain status­quo till their appearance. It is the case of the plaintiff's that in breach of this order, the appellant started construction on the site for creating Dr. Dwarkadas Kotnis Memorial. 2. Defendant no. 1 replied stating that the land has been allotted to Solapur Municipal Corporation and is not in possession of defendant no.1 and the Solapur Municipal Corporation is developing the land. The learned Trial Judge, after considering the material placed before him held that Solapur Municipal Corporation was not party before the Court. The development was not shown to have been carried out by defendant nos. 1 and 2, and therefore, there is no breach of the order passed by the learned trial Judge on 25th September, 2009. 3 ao787-10 No fault can be found with this order, when the development was not carried out by defendant no.1. There is nothing to disbelieve defendant no.1 that the site had been handed over for Dr. Dwarkadas Kotnis Memorial, and therefore, unless the plaintiffs could establish that defendant no.1 was party to the development taking place on the site, action for contempt against defendant no.1 cannot be initiated. 3. In view of the above, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 4. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ R. C. CHAVAN, J. ]