IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 34 OF 2007 with SUIT NO.2715 OF 2007 Manpreet Singh Mehroke & Ors ...Petitioners Vs. Nandkumar Anand Vaity & Ors ...Respondents / Opponents Mr.Atul G. Damle i/b. M/s. J. Shekhar for Petitioners 3,6,21,22,24,28,29,31,37. Mr. D.D. Madon i/b. M/s. Wadia Gandy & Co., for Respondents 39,40 & 41. CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 4 TH MARCH , 2009 P.C. 1. The Petitioners have filed this Petition for civil contempt alleging interference with the order dated 28 th November 2003 of the Co-operative Court appointing the Court Receiver. The Petitioners have alleged interference with the proceeding of the Court Receiver at site whilst taking possession of the property in dispute in the Co-operative Court. That interference is stated to have been made by the parties other than the Opponent in the dispute. 2. It will have to be seen whether such act of interference would be an act of civil contempt. 3. Civil contempt defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order or Writ or other process of the Court. The Petitioners allege willful disobedience of the order of appointment of Court Receiver and the direction of the Co-operative Court to the Receiver to take possession of the property in dispute. The willful disobedience contemplated under Section 2(b) would, therefore, necessarily be by the party in dispute. The Petitioners have not alleged any contempt by the Opponents in the dispute. 4. The Petitioners have alleged interference by other parties, not parties in dispute. Such interference is from allowing the Receiver to take possession of the property in dispute. 5. Mr. Madon on behalf of Respondents 39 to 41 contends that such an act would be criminal contempt under Section 2( c ) (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The said sub- clause shows an act of interference which obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner i.e., as mentioned in Sub clause (i) & (ii) of the said Section. 6. Mr. Madon has drawn my attention to the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Kilachand Devchand & Co. Vs. Ajodhyaprasad Sukhanand 36 B.L.R . 992 . That was the case of obstruction to the Receiver appointed by the Court. It has been held in that judgment that interference with or obstructing the Receiver appointed by the Court is a contempt of criminal nature. 7. If that is so, the Petitioner must follow the procedure laid down in Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Under that section the High Court on its own Motion or upon a Motion made by an Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing to Advocate General or may try a Contempt Petition. The Petitioner has not followed the said procedure. Hence, the Petition is filed for Civil contempt. Hence the Contempt Petition, as filed, is not maintainable. 8. The Contempt Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)