1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4425 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 2995 OF 1999 Ramesh Daulatram Harjani. ... Plaintiff Vs 1. Rohit Chatru Pursram & ors. ... Contemnors/Respdts. Mr. Pandey i/b M/s. Pandey & Co. for the Plaintiff. Ms. Jeristine Sidhwa, Mr. Vinod Solanki, Ms. Anila Acharya i/b M/s. Tijoriwala & Co. for the Respondent/Contemnor No.1 and Defendant No. 1(a). Ms. Kashmira Bharucha i/b S.V. Phadke for the Contemnor/Respondent No. 2. Mr. Sanjay Jain i/b Ramesh Jain & Kusum Jain for the Contemnor/ Respondent No.3. CORAM: S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 14TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. This is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, alleging contempt on the part of the Defendant and the two Respondents. An order of attachment before judgment dated 1st August, 2001 was passed in respect of the shop and the 2 interest of the original Plaintiff therein. It appears that the warrant of attachment was, however, issued also in respect of certain movables within the shop. It is not necessary to consider whether that was justified. The value of the movables is negligent. 2. There is no dispute that the attachment had been levied on the shop and on the movables. 3. Respondent No.2 is the brother of the original Defendant. The original Defendant expired on 2nd October, 2006. The present Defendant, his son, was impleaded in his place on 19th October, 2006. 4. It is contended that contrary to the order dated 1st August, 2006, the Defendant and the Respondents broke the seal of this court, disposed of the movables and transferred the tenancy rights in the shop premises in favour of the Respondent No.3. 5. From the evidence on record, no case of contempt of court has been made out against any of the parties. Respondent No.3 claims to have been granted the tenancy rights in respect of the said shop by the landlord who is 3 not a party either to the suit or to this Notice of Motion. He obtained the tenancy rights under a registered deed dated 23rd February, 2007. According to the respondent No.3, there was nothing at site which indicated the order of attachment being levied on the shop. There was no seal of this court. Further, the landlord was in possession and it is the landlord who had handed over possession to the Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, therefore, was a bonafide transferee of the tenancy rights without notice of the order of this court. 6. It is not necessary to consider the above submissions on behalf of the Respondent No.3 for two reasons. Firstly, the evidence on record does not militate against the stand of Respondent No.3. Secondly, Respondent No.3 and the Plaintiff have resolved their disputes in terms of the consent minutes of the order, tendered in court, signed by the parties, taken on record and marked “X”. In view of what is stated therein, there shall be an order in terms thereof. Both the parties are present in court. There is nothing to indicate any malafides on the part of the Respondent No.3. 7. Nor do I find any case of contempt of court having been made out against the Defendant and Respondent No.2. Apart from the fact that the 4 Respondent No.2 only acted on behalf of the Defendant, there is nothing that indicates that it is the present parties who broke the seal of this court. It could well have been done by the original Defendant himself. As stated above, the original Defendant expired on 2nd December, 2006. The transaction between the landlord and Respondent No.3 is dated 23rd February, 2007. There is no evidence as to when possession was handed over to the landlord. Nor is there any evidence as to who surrendered possession to the landlord. If it is the original Defendant, the contempt does not survive in view of his having died. 8. The above Notice of Motion is, accordingly, disposed of. 9. All parties to act on a copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Private Secretary/Associate of this court.