1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 17 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 920 OF 2007 Austin Joseph Rodrigues & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s M/s Qureshi Builders & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Punita Soni i/b Nandlal Kothari & Sabir for the petitioners. Mr. P.G. Singh i/b Legal Liaisons for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 1/4/2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for taking action in contempt against the respondent nos.1 to 3 for alleged breach of the consent decree dated 27th July 2007 passed in Suit No.920 of 2007. 3. The petitioners had filed a suit against the respondents bearing Suit No.920 of 2007. In the said suit, a decree by consent of the parties was passed on 27th July 2007. Under 2 the said decree, the respondents were required to carry out the construction and hand over the possession of the flat to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, though the construction was carried out and possession of an agreed premises was handed over to them the completion certificate has not been obtained and the respondents have not completed their all obligations under the consent decree and thereby the respondents have committed a contempt of court. 4. Primarily, remedy of the petitioners-plaintiffs in the event of consent decree not being followed is to put it for execution. Contempt petition is not an appropriate remedy. Even otherwise, I do not find that the respondents have substantially complied with the consent decree. In view of the dispute raised as to whether the construction was carried out as per the consent decree, Third Assistant Master of the Court was appointed as a Court Commissioner to visit the premises and submit a report. Accordingly, the Court Commissioner visited the premises and submitted the report. Para 14 of the reports shows that almost all things which have been agreed upon and ordered in the consent decree, have been complied with. There appears to be some dispute regarding installation and working of the lift. Admittedly, lift 3 has been installed and there may be some teething troubles in its. As regards the completion certificate, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have put up a sintex tank in their premises in violation of the Municipal Rules and therefore the completion certificate could not be obtained. As regards the execution of conveyance deed, learned counsel for the respondents submits that certain documents are required to be furnished by the petitioners, particularly because they claim to a concessional stamp duty on account of old tenancy. It thus appears that except for the disputed items, all the other things have been complied with by the respondents. As regards the disputed items, appropriate remedy for the respondents is to take out an execution petition as they involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in a contempt petition. 5. For these reasons, I am not inclined to admit the contempt petition which is hereby dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)