CP 324-10.sxw 1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.324 OF 2010 Umashankar Vishwanath Vishwakarma..Petitioner V/s. The Municipal Corporation of ..Respondents Greater Mumbai & ors WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.325 OF 2010 Umashankar Vishwanath Vishwakarma..Petitioner V/s. The Municipal Corporation of ..Respondents Greater Mumbai & ors Mr.A.B.Mishtra, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr.M.M.Malvankar, Advocate, for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 16TH JULY, 2010 P.C. . Both these Petitions are filed complaining of disobedience of the Order dated 5th January, 2010 passed by the City Civil Court in Short Cause Civil suit Nos.310 & 311 of 2007. Both the Petitions are directed against the inaction on the part of the CP 324-10.sxw 2 Municipal Corporation in complying with decrees passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai in Short Cause Civil suit Nos.310 and 311 of 2007 dated 5th January, 2010. The orders in the two suits are similarly worded & except for suit number read as under :- O R D E R Suit No.311/2007 stands partly decreed as under :- The order passed by Assistant Municipal Commissioner is set aside on the following terms and conditions :- The plaintiff is directed to submit his reply and documents to the defendant within 4 weeks from the date of order. Thereafter, Assistant Municipal Commissioner shall pass a reasoned order more particularly on the point as to whether the suit structure is censused or not and communicate the same to the plaintiff. If the order goes adverse to the plaintiff, the suit structure shall not be demolished for the period of 6 weeks after communication of the order to the plaintiff. If plaintiff fails to comply the above directions within prescribed time, the protection given to the suit structure shall stands vacated automatically. CP 324-10.sxw 3 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that he has complied with direction which was given to him to submit his reply and referred to letter written by him to the Municipal Commissioner dated 27th January, 2010. This was reply by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation pointing out that the Petitioner had neither produced any document nor replied the notice to show that the structure was authorized, though the reply erroneously states that suits were dismissed. 3. The order is capable of being executed. There is no need for the Petitioner to rush to this Court and invoke jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act. If there is any disobedience of Order of any Court & it is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, because mechanism provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is inadequate, the party concerned must, under CP 324-10.sxw 4 the rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act move the Civil Court to make a reference to this Court, since this procedure would ensure that all the factual questions are decided by the Civil Court before making a reference. If it found that there is wilful disobedience which calls for invokation of jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court would make a reference. 4. From the averments in the Petitions, it cannot per se be concluded that case calls for invocation of this extraordinary jurisdiction. 5. Contempt Petitions are, therefore, dismissed leaving the Petitioners the liberty to seek such relief as may be available in law. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.) CP 324-10.sxw 5