1 7.conp-54-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 3320 OF 2006. Husain Taherali Changi. ..Petitioner. vs. Muzaffar Fakhruddin Tinwala & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Shamim, i/b. Shamim & Co., for Petitioner. Mr. Muzaffar Fakhruddin Tinwala, Respondent No. 1, present. Mrs. Shaheeda Muzaffar Tinwala, Respondent No. 2, present. Mr. A.H.Khatri, for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 16TH DECEMBER 2011. P.C. : The Petitioner has filed the above Contempt Petition alleging that the Respondents have committed contempt of orders passed by this Court dated 19th October 2006 and 22nd November 2006 restraining the Respondent No. 1 from selling and/or transferring the premises to any third party. It is alleged by the Petitioner that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have now illegally sold and transferred the said premises to one Mr. Murtuza Arsiwala, Respondent No.3 and the said Arsiwala who is the third party is presently in possession of the Suit premises. 2. Respondent No.1 has filed an Affidavit in Reply to the Contempt Petition dated 27th November 2009 wherein he has pointed out that subsequent to the orders passed by this Court, on or about 2 7.conp-54-08 23rd July 2007, the Petitioner and the Respondents entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), whereby the Petitioner and the Respondents agreed and decided to settle their dispute. Under the said MOU, the Petitioner relinquished all his rights, title, interest and possession in favour of the Respondent No.1. Under the MOU, it was also agreed that the Petitioner shall withdraw the Suit filed in the High Court being No. 3320 of 2006 and the Suit filed before the City Civil Court being No.2211 of 2006. The Respondent No. 1 has further stated in his Affidavit-in-Reply that after the execution of the said MOU, the Petitioner has acted upon the same and allowed the Society to transfer the rent receipts in the name of Respondent No.2. Accordingly, the Society has issued rent receipts in favour of Respondent No.2. A copy of the MOU dated 23rd July 2007 as well as the rent receipt issued by the Society in favour of Respondent No. 2 are annexed to the said Affidavit-in-Reply. 3. The Petitioner has filed his Affidavit-in-Rejoinder dated 14th January 2010. However, he has not dealt with the facts narrated by the Respondent No.1 including execution of the said MOU. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner on instructions admits that the MOU was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 after passing of the said orders of which breach is alleged in the present Contempt Petition. He is unable to explain as to why the said MOU was suppressed from this Court by the Petitioner in the present Contempt Petition. He is also unable to explain that if the MOU was executed by the Petitioner, giving up all his rights, how can he allege contempt of the orders passed by this Court. The Contempt Petition is therefore dismissed with costs. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]