:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO.174 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.174 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.174 OF 2007 Kishore J. Chheda ...Petitioner. v. Chandrakant A Dalal & Ors. ...Respondents. Mrs.S.M.Tekavade , adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.R.G.Sharma , adv. for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 20th June, 2008. DATE: 20th June, 2008. DATE: 20th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. Respondent no.1 Chandrakant Dalal had filed the Appeal from Order No.548 of 2006 against the Municipal Corporation. On 6th October, 2006, he filed undertaking before this Court stating that he did not wish to prosecute the appeal with liberty to vacate/remove the suit shed within three months. He also gave an undertaking that he alongwith his family members would vacate/remove the suit shed within three months from that day. That undertaking was accepted and the Appeal From Order No.548 of 2006 was disposed off by the order which bears the date as 3rd October, 2006. There appears some mistake in the date of the order because the undertaking dated 6th October, 2006 could not have been accepted on 3rd October, 2006. Anyhow, the fact :2: remains that he was granted time upto 5th January, 2007 to remove the said structure by this Court. This petition was filed by the intervenor, who claims to have purchased that property contending that the respondent no.1 had not vacated the premises within a specified period and thus, he had committed breach of that order and contempt of the Court. This Contempt Petition was filed on 30th April, 2007. The respondent no.1 had filed his own affidavit dated 1st November, 2007. He had also filed affidavits of Rajgopal V. Raghavan, Anant Banwasi, Rajgopal Kannan, Gajanan Pandit, Sundera Srivivasan, Shashikant Nevrekar, which were sworn in July, 2007. All these affidavits reveal that the contemnor/respondent no.1 on enquiries told that he would be vacating the said place also by the end of January, 2007 and from February, 2007 onwards, he and his family members were never seen back and the said structure was also razed down. The petitioner has also filed his own affidavit dated 13th June, 2008 wherein he admits that now the structure is not seen in the premises of the building. 2. It appears that the respondent no.1 was given time upto 5th January, 2007 to vacate the premises and to remove the shed. As he could not vacate the premises within stipulated period, on 10th January, 2007, he moved Civil Application No.50 of 2007 in the Appeal From Order No.548 of 2006 seeking the extension of time for :3: vacating the premises. By the order dated 25th January, 2007, this Court had extended the time till 10th February, 2007. It appears that after the extension of time upto 10th February, 2007, he had vacated the premises. The present petitioner, who claims to be the purchaser of the property and who was intervenor in the said appeal, has filed this Contempt Petition on 13th April, 2007, i.e., long after the respondent no.1 had vacated the premises and complied with the order. It appears that because of several other litigations, civil as well as criminal, the petitioner filed this contempt petition before this Court, which was totally unnecessary. I find that there is no substance in the present petition. Therefore, the contempt petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)