IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.12 OF 2009 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.12 OF 2009 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.12 OF 2009 IN IN IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3194 OF 2006. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3194 OF 2006. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3194 OF 2006. IN IN IN SUIT NO.2604 of 2006. SUIT NO.2604 of 2006. SUIT NO.2604 of 2006. Naresh Madhavji BHanushali ..Plaintiff versus Amrutlal Madhavji Bhanushali & Others ..Defendants Mr.J.S.Kini i/b. Suresh Dubey for the petitioner None for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 16th February, 2009. DATED : 16th February, 2009. DATED : 16th February, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. By orders passed by this Court on 7.3.2007 and 21.3.2007 ad-interim reliefs were granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer that action be taken against the defendant No.1 for contempt as according to the petitioner the defendants are changing the situation at the site. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Two grounds were placed before the Court, namely the defendants have removed the board -2- and the defendants are about to install the new board. The photographs annexed to the petition show that certain boards have been taken away and presently there is no board to the shop. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, removal of the board and the plan to instal the new board would amount to contempt. The Counsel for the petitioner wanted to rely upon certain photographs so as to show that the new boards are installed at the site. 3. It was also alleged that the defendants are trying to bring in new person as partner. This allegation is made even without mentioning the name of a particular person who is sought to be taken up as new partner. This allegation is made on the basis that the existing partner has opened a new shop few feets away from the shop. After having considered the entire matter, I am inclined to observe that no prima facie case is made out in so far as the allegations of contempt are made. In so far as the claim of the petitioner that the defendants have carried out alterations with regard to the premises cannot be accepted in order to say that prima facie case is made out. It may be true -3- as seen in the photographs that the board of the shop has been removed, but merely removing of the board may not amount to contempt as it may be possible that the defendant may be repairing the existing board. 4. The allegation of the petitioner that the new board was installed was sought to be made and photogrpah was sought to be relied upon across the bar. In my view, as regards this stand, there is nothing on record to show that the defendants have violated the order of changing the board. 5. If at all the petitioners can show in future that the defendants have vioalted the Order of status quo and have carried out the change in the factual situation, it will be open for the petitioner to place before the Court all the material which constitutes overt act on the part of the defendant which amounts to contempt of Court. On the basis of record, no case is made out of defendant committing contempt. 6. In so far as giving the full assets of the deceased, which are concerned with the Order passed -4- by the Court on 7.3.2007 and 21.3.2007 is an ad-interim order. In my view, at this juncture when the notice of motion is pending it would not be proper to hold that the defendants have committed contempt. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order: ORDER i. Motion is dismissed. ii. Liberty has been granted to the petitioner to take out fresh motion if they are in position to place before the Court full record to substantiate the allegations of contempt of court. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)