1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMTP PETITION NO.86 OF 2009 Nanu Gunwant Mithari : Petitioner versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. : Respondents. Ms.Radhika Samant i/by Shri D.M.Shah for the Petitioner. Shri J J Xavier for the Respondent/BMC CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 20, 2009 P.C. 1. Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board. 2. Leave to amend so as to annex photo copy of the certified copy of the order dated 16/6/2006 is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. The contempt alleged is of the order dated 16/06/2006 passed in L C Suit No.3712 of 1987. The said suit was filed challenging the notice issued under Section 351 of the Bombay 2 Municipal Corporation Act by the Respondent-Corporation. The said suit was disposed of by issuing directions which are contained in Paragraphs 1 to 7 of the said order. The Plaintiff i.e the Petitioner herein was to file reply to the said notice and was also free to annex the documents on which he wants to place reliance. The same was to be done within four weeks. The Corporation was to consider the Plaintiff's reply and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. The ad-interim injunction granted on 14/6/1989 was to continue until ten weeks. 4. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff has already filed his reply. However, according to the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, the Corporation has yet not passed any orders. 5. In view of the fresh threats allegedly given by the officer of the Corporation's officers, the Plaintiff has filed a fresh suit being L C Suit No.901 of 2008 in which a notice of motion was moved for the ad-interim reliefs. By order dated 15/5/2008 the said ad-interim reliefs were refused on the ground that there is no necessity to pass any 3 order in view of the order dated 16/6/2006. 6. The instant Contempt Petition has been filed that in spite of the order dated 16/6/2006 and the order dated 15/5/2008 a threat of demolition has given without complying with the said orders. 7. On behalf of the Respondent/Corporation, Shri J J Xavier the learned counsel states that no precipitative action against the structure in question would be taken without complying with the said order dated 16/6/2006, if not already complied with. The statement of the learned counsel for the Corporation Shri J J Xavier is accepted. 8. In view of the said statement, there is no warrant to entertain the above Contempt Petition which is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]