1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.379 OF 2006 Ishabai Mohammad Siddi & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus City Engineer, SRA & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.A.Sawant for petitioners Mr.Bipin Joshi for respondent Nos. 8 and 9 Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for respondent Nos.2(A), 3 and 4 Mr.G.D.Utangale with B.V.Phadnis i/b. M/s.Utangale & Co. for respondent No.1. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7th May 2010. P.C.: 1] This contempt petition alleges civil contempt. It is stated that in a pending first appeal an order was made on 5th August 2004 by this Court restraining Kantilal Manilal Savla who is party respondent No.6 in Civil Application No.407 of 2004 in First Appeal No.912 of 2004, from carrying on construction on the suit property. It is stated that prayers (a) and (d) of the Civil Application came to be granted by an order dated 5th August 2004 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge has clarified that injunction in terms of prayer (a) would 2 cover only the suit property viz., the property described in para 1 of the plaint. 2] Mr.Sawant appearing on behalf of petitioners to this petition, who are original appellants, submits that the suit property described in para 1 of the plaint is CTS No.3, Survey No.267/part and Survey No.229 admeasuring 8470 sft. Or thereabouts situate at Mohd. Jamal Chawl, Nehru Nagar, S.G.Barve Marg, Kurla (east), Mumbai. It appears that during the pendency of this petition, some issue was raised as to whether construction is made on this property or some other property. Affidavits have been filed in reply to the contempt petition by the contemnor, Statutory Authority. In the affidavit in reply a statement is made that the construction, if any, is not on the property which has been stated to be the suit property/ described in para 1 of the plaint but the construction is on plot No.3(part), S.No.231 village Kurla, Nehru Nagar, Mumbai. It is categorically stated that the construction is not on the property which is described in para 1 of the plaint. It is further stated that the property is vaguely described in para 1 of the plaint and C.T.S.No.3 is large track of land. 3 3] In my view, Mr.Joshi’s statement made after instructions and substantiated by the statements made in paras 2 and 3 of the affidavit in reply of respondent No.9 are enough to dispose of this petition. If the construction is not being carried out on the property described in para 1 of the plaint but on the portion of C.T.S.No.3 with different Survey Number, then the remedy of the petitioner is not to institute this contempt petition but to seek substantive reliefs. Keeping open all pleas and proceeding on the basis of the statements made on oath, this petition is disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)