1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMTP PETITION NO. 363 OF 2008 Shri Posharam Krishna Patil and ors. : Petitioners. Versus Mr.Bhagwanji Dharmshi Patel : Respondent. Ms Ankita Singhania i/by CORPS Legal for the Petitioners. Shri Jitendra Sachdev for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 20, 2009 P.C. 1. The above Contempt Petition alleges the contempt to the order dated 22nd August 2007 passed in Appeal from Order No.582 of 2007. The said order is in the form of Minutes of Order tendered by the parties. The contempt alleged is of clause (2) of the said Minutes of Order, which reads as under :- “Clause 2 : The Appellant will be entitled to proceed with the construction of the building on the suit property bearing No.39, Sector 20, 2 admeasuring 2699.83 square meters, situated at Kharghar Node, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad, which is already more than half way through, on condition that any transaction of transfer of any part of the said building to be entered into hereafter will be with express notice by the Appellant to such Transfere/s about pendency of the Special Civil Suit No.203 of 1996 filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4(a) in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panvel and that the construction made and transfers made by the Appellant will be subject to the result of the said suit.” 2. The sum and substance of the case of the Petitioner, who was the original Respondent No.1 in the Appeal from Order is that in terms of the said order dated 22nd August 2007 the Respondent herein was required to inform the prospective purchasers about the pending litigation, which has not been done by him, and in fact has taken from the purchasers in writing in the agreement for sale executed between the purchasers and the respondent that the purchasers have satisfied themselves about the title of the respondent 3 to the said property and declared that the purchasers would not be entitled to raise any objection in the matter relating to the title or otherwise. 3. The respondent has filed an affidavit in reply in the above contempt petition to which is annexed the list of the purchasers with whom the respondent has entered into an agreement for sale after 22nd August 2007, that is the date of the order, up to 17th November 2008. The respondent has also annexed the letters informing the purchasers of the pending litigation between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The said letters, according to the Respondent, are in terms of the directions contained in clause 2 of the said order dated 22nd August 2007. Similar letters have been addressed to as many as 57 purchasers. 4. Clause (iii) of the said letter is relevant and is reproduced herein under :- “It is further to place on record that we have 4 already informed you with regard to pendency of Special Civil Suit No.203 of 1996, before the honourable Civil Judge, (SD) Panvel, filed by Poshiram Krishna Patil v/s Barkibai Bhurya Patil where in we are also party defendant and present sale will be subject to the result of the said suit” 5. In view of the dispute raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as regards whether all the purchasers have in fact been informed of the pending litigation between the Petitioner and the Respondent, by order dated 30th January 2009 this Court had directed the Respondent to file an affidavit of some of the purchasers out of the said 57 purchasers. Accordingly the Respondent has filed separate affidavits of about 9 purchasers wherein the said purchasers have specifically mentioned in para 1(iii) of the said affidavit that they have been informed of the pendency of the Special Civil Suit No.203 of 1996 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel and subject to whose outcome the agreement for sale has been entered into. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner sought time on the 5 ground that the Petitioner would be able to file affidavits of some other purchasers to the effect that they have not been so informed by the Respondent. 7. In my view, the said request cannot be acceded to. The contempt petition has been filed as indicated herein above alleging the contempt of clause (2) of the said Minutes of Order. If the Petitioner was aware of such purchasers, who have not been put to notice, the said material should have been filed along with the contempt petition. Seeking time now on the said ground of filing affidavit of the purchasers, who, according to the Petitioner, have not been put to notice creates doubt as regards the motives of the Petitioner in filing the above contempt petition. 8. In so far as the aspect of title is concerned, the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the stereo typed clause which is appearing in all the agreements, prior to the order dated 22nd August 2007 passed by this Court inadvertently remained to be deleted. However, the fact remains that all the purchasers from the 6 date of the order i.e 22nd August 2007 have been informed of the pending litigation. 9. Having considered the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent, as also the letters annexed thereto and the affidavits of 9 purchasers filed pursuant to the order dated 30th January 2009, in my view, the Respondent has complied with the directions contained in clause (2) of the Minutes of the Order in so far as the said 57 purchasers are concerned. In that view of the matter no case for proceeding against the respondent in contempt jurisdiction is made out. The above Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]