IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 222 OF 2009 Dr.Omprakash B. Soniminde & Anr. …..Petitioners. Versus Mr.Ramesh C. Mankani & Ors. …..Respondents. -------- Mr. Tejas Deshpande, for the Petitioners. Mr. Ravi Gurnani, for the Respondents. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. DATED: 18TH JUNE 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard, the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the respondent nos.1 and 2, in willful disobedience of order dated 10th January, 2003 passed by Co-Operative Court No.11 at Mumbai in Case No.CC/II/26/1999, are doing civil work and furnishing the flat nos.701 and 702. After perusal of the operative part of the Order dated 10th January 2003, it discloses that respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to maintain status-quo as to possession and title of the flat nos.701 and 702 till disposal of disputes. This order was confirmed by the Co-Operative Appellate Court in Appeal no.46 of 2004. ..: 2 :.. 2, The averments made by Petitioners in paragraph 8(j) and 8(m), of their dispute, discloses that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the flat nos.701 and 702. Be that as it may, the Co-Operative Appellate Court in Order dated 27th October, 2004 passed in Appeal No.46 of 2004 made following observations: “It means as far as possession and use of the appellants over the said flats is concerned, the trial court has not passed any order agains them. The order of status-quo practically prohibits the appellants from creating third party interest in the said flats and from parting with possession of the said flats.” 3. It was the case of the petitioners’ themselves that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are in possession of flat nos.701 and 702. The Co- Operative Appellate Court has recorded finding that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are in possession of flat nos.701 and 702. Respondent nos.1 and 2, even according to allegations of the petitioners, are furnishing the said flat nos.701 and 702 and doing some civil work. By no strech of imagination, it can be stated that the said activities are in breach of the order dated 10th January 2003 passed by the Co-Operative Appellate Court in Case No.CC/II/26/1999. ..: 3 :.. 4. In above circumstances, I do not find any substance in the present petition, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. JUDGE acd