1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 141 OF 2009 Yogesh Brahmwar .. Petitioner. v/s. M/s. Danish Syscom Limited & Ors. .. Respondents. .... Shri Shrivardhan Deshpande i/b. Negandhi, Shah & Himayatullah for Petitioner. Respondents are present in person. .... CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : MARCH 19, 2010. P.C. The above Contempt Petition has been filed by the Petitioner above named who was the Defendant in L.C. Suit No. 3557 of 2004 on account of the Respondent No.1 not abiding by the undertakings given by it as recorded in the Consent Terms dated 12th December, 2006 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No. 2 i.e. the Petitioner above name. 2. The Respondents are present in person and tender their affidavits. The Respondent No. 1 above named has filed 2 affidavit dated 15th March, 2010, the Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit dated 4th December, 2009 and the Respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit dated 15th March, 2010. In the said affidavits all the Respondents have tendered an unconditional apology for the breach and violation of the undertaking given by them. It is further stated in the said affidavits that the openings in the wall had to be maintained impervious to light and air by the workers who were executing some other work for the Respondents and without the Respondents’ knowledge and/or consent. It is further stated that the said breach and violation of the undertaking was not deliberate but purely due to oversight. It has lastly being stated that the Respondents have duly filled-up the said openings made in the wall and have restored the wall to its original shape and condition. The said Respondents have also assured this Court that the Respondents would faithfully and diligently observe and honour the said order, the said Consent Terms as also the undertakings contained therein. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has received the said affidavits. The learned counsel for the Petitioner on instructions states that the Petitioner is satisfied by the statements 3 made in the said affidavit, and therefore, does not desire to prosecute the Contempt Petition any further. 4. The statement made by the Respondents in paragraph 3 and 4 of their affidavits, is accepted. In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner, there is now no warrant to proceed with the Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. [ R. M. SAVANT, J. ]