1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.6 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1234 OF 2008 Pancham Associates .. Petitioners Versus Smt.Vijaya M. Sheth & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.B.Shah for petitioners Mr.J.S.Kini for respondents CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5th March 2009. P.C. . This contempt petition is by the original defendants - petitioners before me. They were arggrieved by an order passed on 28th March 2008 on a notice of motion in the suit filed by the respondents - original plaintiffs. 2. They carried the matter in appeal. I am informed that the appeal is pending. In the 2 appeal, they moved a notice of motion being Notice of Motion No.3568 of 2008 for interim reliefs. A copy of the notice of motion is annexed as Annexure 3 to this petition. 3. The notice of motion is also pending. The matter was moved before the Division Bench and on 21st October 2008, the following order was passed:- "1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Notice of motion be heard along with the appeal. 2. Status quo order passed earlier, shall continue to operate." 4. Mr.Shah appearing for the petitioner urges that the respondents have committed contempt of this order by renewing a lease agreement in favour of Bank of Baroda. The order 3 grants status quo and alteration of status quo is done by renewal of this lease. In such circumstances, this is a fit case for initiation of contempt proceedings on the basis that the respondents are guilty of civil contempt. 5. Mr.Kini on the other hand invites my attention to the order passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench and contends that all that is directed by the Division Bench is to maintain status quo with regard to possession. The status quo with regard to possession as was granted by the Single Judge is something which is continued, according to Mr.Kini, as per clause 2 of the Division Bench order. Nothing more can be read into this order and if the bank is already in possession, renewal of this can by no stretch of imagination be construed as contempt of Division Bench order. That would amount to reading into the order something which is not there. 4 6. Having perused the petition, annexures thereto and reply affidavit, I am of the view that the Division Bench granted limited protection to the petitioner appellants viz., continuation of status quo as granted by the Single Judge. That part of the Single Judge’s order reads thus:- "11. Prayer clauses (b) and (d) are not pressed. Insofar as prayer clause (c) is concerned, the parties shall maintain status quo in regard to possession. It is clarified that the order of status quo shall not entitle the defendants to carry on any further work of construction." 7. A perusal of the same would indicate that the order passed is against the present petitioners. Insofar as restraining them from carrying out any work or construction. Parties 5 are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession. That would mean, whosoever was in possession can continue to remain so. If the bank was in possession and that would have to be done only by continuation of the agreement, I do not see any contempt committed. Petition is, therefore, misconceived and must, therefore, be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)