1 WP No.322/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.322 of 2011 Chelakara Ramaswamy and anr ... Petitioners versus M/s.Kalpa aru Soham Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondents ... Mr.S.M.Oke i/b Sagar Joshi for the petitioners. Mr.Vineet Naik with Ms.Swati Dahibavkar i/b Sanju Ahooja for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 8th August 2011 P.C. 1. This petition at the instance of original plaintiffs is directed against an order dated 6 October 2010 rejecting their application for taking action under Order 39 Rule 2A read with Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an alleged breach of injunction by the defendant (respondent). 2. By an agreement dated 19 January 1998, the respondents agreed to construct and sell to the petitioners suit flat. The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement. 2 WP No.322/11 During the pendency of the suit, they claimed an interim injunction restraining the respondents from selling, transferring, alienating or parting with the possession of the suit flat. On 16 February 2001, an ex-parte order was passed by the court directing the respondents to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till the filing of the written statement and say on the application. After hearing the parties, the court granted an injunction restraining the respondents from creating third party interest and also restraining them from using the suit flat for their personal use. According to the petitioners, respondent was using the flat as a site office and was thereby committing the breach of the order of injunction and therefore, he prayed that action be taken against them. 3. By filing a reply, respondent clarified that before the initial order of status quo was passed, they were using the suit flat as a site office and used it only upto 12 October 2001 when they were specifically restrained from using the suit flat for personal use. The trial Judge has also not held that the respondents had used the premises as a site office after 12 October 2001. As such, there is no breach of the final order of injunction passed by the court on 12 October 2001. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners continued to use the suit flat as site office despite ad-interim ex- parte order dated 16 February 2001 and that he had committed the breach of the ad-interim order and therefore court ought to have taken an action. The ex-parte order dated 16 February 2001 reads thus: 3 WP No.322/11 “The defendants are directed to maintain status quo in respect of alienating, creating or using the suit property till filing of the written statement and say on this application in the matter”. 5. It is the contention of the defendants that there was an order of status quo regarding use of the flat and since they were using the premises even before the order was passed, the order of status quo did not prevent them to use the premises and therefore, they did not stop the use on 16 February 2001. The explanation is a plausible explanation and has been accepted by the trial court. No interference is called for in exercise of an extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)