1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 187 OF 2008 Sow. Kusum Gajanan Deolalikar & ors. ....Petitioners. Versus Rajendra Ratilal Munot & ors. ....Respondents. Shri. K.C. Sant, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri. S.S. Bora, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 19th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1. This petition complains about the willful disobedience/breach of the order dated 24.2.2004, passed by the Division Bench of this Court on Civil Application No. 5152/2003 filed in First Appeal No. 721/2003. By this order, this Court confirmed interim relief in terms of prayer clause "B" of the civil application, which is reproduced below :- "B. To direct the respondents/defendants not to create third party interest or alienate or change the nature of the suit property bearing CTS No. 1899 situated at Ahmednagar, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar, during pendency of the First appeal" 2 2. Shri. Sant, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the photographs annexed to the petition, contends that the respondents have carried out the construction on the suit property, which amounts to changing the nature of the suit property and this was done, according to him, some time in the month of March 2008. In para 6 of the petition, it is specifically averred, as under :- "4. The petitioners state that the petitioners no. 3 had been to Ahmednagar on 2nd of April 2008. During the said visit the petitioner no. 3 noticed that the respondents are trying to change the nature of suit property. The respondents have also put a shed on some portion of the property. The construction seems to have been made in the month of of March 2008 itself." 3. Thus, according to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner had been to Ahmednagar on 2nd of April 2008 and during his visit, he noticed that the respondents were trying to change the nature of the suit property and had put a shed on the some portion of the property. It is not allegation made in the petition that when the petitioner visited the site, he noticed the activity of the construction going on, on 2nd of April 2008. What has been stated in the aforesaid para is that the construction seems to have been made in the month of March 2008 itself. It is not known from the verification of the petition, as to whether this statement is based upon his personal knowledge or from the information received. If at all, it is based upon the information received, the names of the persons from whom such information is gathered have also not been stated. Be that as it may, the averments itself 3 indicate that the petitioner himself is not sure, as to whether the construction was made in the month of March 2008 itself. The proceedings of contempt are quasi criminal in nature and therefore, the charge is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of aforesaid averments made in the petition, it cannot be said by conviction that the construction was carried out in the month of March 2008, for the reason that the averements are not clear and there is no material placed on record to substantiate the same. In view of the aforesaid position, there is no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp187.08