1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 86 OF 2008 Ramavtar Ramprasad Gupta & Anr. ..Petitioners. Vs. Bankaprasad Banwarilal Gupta & Ors. ..Respondents. --- Mr.R.C. Kaushik, for the Petitioner. Ms. Alpana Ghone i/b Mr. Onkar Warange, for Respondent No.2. Ms. Kirti Munshi i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for Respondent No.3. ..... CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 30 th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. The Petitioners are the original Plaintiffs in the suit filed in the Small Causes Court at Bombay. Petitioner complains that the decree of permanent injunction granted in his favour has been disobeyed willfully and deliberately and that is civil contempt. 2. With the assistance of Advocate for the Petitioners, I have perused the decree in RAD Suit No.717 of 1995 dated 29.3.2007. The decree is passed against Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Admittedly, the decree is passed on 29.3.2007 whereas the Respondent No.1 purported to convey the property in question on 23.8.1994 to original Defendant No.1-Respondent No.2. Further, Respondent No.2 has in turn transferred the property as per 2 the averments in the Petition in favour of Respondent No.3. 3. In such circumstances and when Respondent No.3 is stated to have disobeyed a decree, then, the contempt jurisdiction is not available to the Petitioners. Respondent No.3 was not a party to the suit and decree is passed against only Respondent Nos.1 and 2. In these circumstances, remedy of the Petitioner to seek relief against Respondent No.3 lies elsewhere. The Contempt Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)