1 248.08-cp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 248 OF 2008 Shri Kanhaiyalal Motial Talera. ... Petitioner. V/s. Smt.Sadhana Udhavrao Dhadge. ... Respondents. Madhav Jamdar for the petitioner. Birendra Saraf with Miind Nakashe i/b. ALMT Legal for respondent Nos.1 to 3. S.A.Sawant for respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 2nd December 2011. P.C. : The contempt petitioner is alleging willful disobedience of the interim order passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 8245/1999 in Appeal from Order No.1065/1999. This Court by order dated 2nd January 2000 passed following order: “Notice returnable on 7.2.2000. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) on condition that Petitioner shall not part with the suit property by creating right of third party.” The petitioner herein is respondent No.1 in Appeal from Order No. 1065/1999 who is original plaintiff. The contempt petitioner, who is 2 248.08-cp original plaintiff, presented Special Civil Suit No.1193/1988 before the trial Court claiming specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiff alleged to have entered into an agreement with the defendants to purchase the suit property on 2nd November 1981 for a consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-. There was a supplementary agreement dated 26th October 1983, however, the defendant refused to perform his part of the agreement as such Special Civil Suit No.1193/1988 claiming specific performance of the agreement came to filed by the plaintiff. An application at Exh.62 was tendered by the plaintiff seeking appointment of Court Receiver which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 29th April 1999. An apprehension expressed was that the defendants are trying to create third party interest as such the suit property is required to be protected. Defendant No.2 preferred appeal from order against the said order in which ad-interim order as reproduced above was passed on 12th January 2000. The appeal from order came to be disposed of by this Court on 15th December 2004. In paragraph- 4 of the judgment, it is observed by this Court thus: 4. In these circumstances, the impugned order is stayed. However, the parties will maintain status quo as of today. Respondent No.1 may take such action as is necessary in the event he is of the view that the orders of the Court have been flouted by the Appellant. Leaving this liberty open, the Appeal from Order is disposed of. The Trial Court is requested to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any event, before 31.12.2005. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is a breach of the ad-interim order passed by this Court in the aforesaid appeal from order inasmuch as the respondent has created third party 3 248.08-cp interest. In the affidavit in reply presented in the trial Court in an application prior to the presentation of appeal from order it was made clear that the land was given to one Bhikshu Granimart. However, in the affidavit in reply filed in this Court, it is stated that some of the properties have been alienated in favour of one Bhikshu Granimart. It appears that an area of about 23 Gunthas has been alienated in the year 1997. The alienation is prior to passing of interim order passed by this Court in the year 2000 and the final order in 2004 disposing the appeal from order. Thus, there does not appear to be willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said third party is in possession of area of 3,400 sq.mtrs. as it is disclosed in the report of the Commissioner. The report of the Commissioner filed before the trial Court is challenged by the respondents contending that the same does not depict true picture. It would be for the trial Court to consider the correctness or otherwise of the report of the Commissioner. It is to be noted at this stage that this Court while disposing of appeal from order directed the trial Court to decide the pending suit as expeditiously as possible at any rate prior to 31st December 2005. It is stated that the suit is still pending before the trial Court for final disposal. The trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously. 4. This contempt petition does not call for any interference. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. (R.M.BORDE, J.)