1 conp2109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 21 OF 2009 Atamprakash Aggarwal ...Petitioner V/s. Sunil Prakash Aggarwal & Anr. ...Respondents Ms. Ankita Sigharia i/by Mr. Munir Merchant for the Petitioner Mr. Gaurao Joshi with Mr. Shilapan Gaonkar i/by M/s. Udwadia & Udeshi for Respondent No. 1 Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P., for the State. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: 3RD FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.:- This contempt action has been initiated on the assertion that misleading statement was made before the Court on 2nd November, 2007 on behalf of respondent No. 1 / contemner that he would not create third party rights in the disputed property till further orders of the Court, even though he was fully aware that, on the date when such statement was made, he himself was not the owner of the property. The fact remains 2 conp2109 that respondent No. 1 transferred, by way of gift, the property, in anterior point of time, to none else, but his own wife. The explanation given on behalf of respondent No.1 is that he did not realise that the statement ought to be made on behalf of his wife specifically, or it was necessary to clarify the position by placing on record that the disputed property is actually owned by his wife, and not himself. 2. The fact remains that the petitioner has subsequently amended the suit and impleaded the wife of respondent No. 1 as party defendant. Moreover, the wife of respondent No.1 has also made statement and assured that the assurance given to the Court by her husband on 2nd November, 2007 would bind her, and even she would abide by the same arrangement. Besides, statement of the wife is recorded in the order passed on 6th April, 2009 in Notice of Motion No. 146 of 2009 in Suit No. 818 of 1993. 3. Taking over all view, we do not think it necessary to precipitate the matter any further. This order, however, shall not be construed as expression of any opinion on the issues relating to the rights of the respective parties, which will have to be answered in the pending proceedings. 3 conp2109 4. Notice is discharged. Petition is disposed of accordingly. 5. After this order is dictated, in deference to the observation made by the Court, the counsel appearing for the respective parties - petitioner and respondent No. 1 - on instructions of respective clients, have shown willingness to explore possibility of settlement through mediation process. This, in our opinion, is imminently a fit case, which ought to be referred to mediation, as the dispute is between two brothers and the mother, who is quite old - about 80 years of age - and is unnecessarily being dragged in this litigation between them. We appreciate the gesture shown by the petitioner and respondent No. 1, through counsel, to accept the suggestion of exploring the possibility of settlement between the parties through mediation process. 6. We appoint Mr. Nitin Thakker, Senior Advocate, to act as Mediator. The parties, through counsel, assure to extend full co- operation during the mediation process. Parties are free to get in touch with the Mediator to fix the date of mediation before him. 4 conp2109 7. Copy of the order be forwarded forthwith to the Coordinator, High Court Mediation Centre, for information and necessary action. A.R. JOSHI, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.