1 CP-4.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.4 OF 2009 Laxmi Industrial Estate Builders & Developers .... Petitioner Vs. M/s. Pramukh Development Corporation & Ors. .... Respondents S/Shri Anil Singh i/b D.R. Shah for the Petitioner. Shri N. Srivastava for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 23, 2010 P.C: 1. This petition is a classic example of how scarce judicial time is wasted in frivolous litigation. This unfortunate remark has to come at the beginning of the order in the context of the following facts: 2. On 16-2-2008, in Appeal From Order No. 566 of 2006, this Court passed an elaborate order whereby the petitioner was to deposit a sum of Rs.50 lakhs which was to be kept in a fixed deposit by the trial Court and which was to be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. By clause (vi) of the order, the Court granted liberty to both the parties to put 2 CP-4.09 notice board on the nullah clearly indicating that the ownership of the land of the nullah is in dispute in Suit No.2969 of 2004 pending before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The respondent-M/s.Pramukh Development Corporation, however, has put a board which reads as under: "THIS CULVERT WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED BY LAXMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS WITHOUT THE CONSENT AND PERMISSION OF THE OWNER PRAMUKH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENDING SUIT NO.2969 OF 2004 FILED BY PRAMUKH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY AGAINST LAXMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS. BY ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY IN A.O.NO.566 OF 2006 LAXMI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO DEPOSIT IN THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY AN AMOUNT OF RS.50.00 LAKHS PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF ABOVE SUIT." An application for speaking to minutes was rejected by this Court on 15-7-2008. Thereafter, a civil application was taken out which was disposed of on 6-10-2008 when this Court ordered as under: "5. The Appellant is at liberty to 3 CP-4.09 rectify the notice as per this order within six weeks from today. Failing the same, the Respondent is at liberty to file an appropriate application for the alleged violation of the order. In the present Civil Application, no orders can be passed regarding compliance with the order dated 16.2.2008." The respondent-Pramukh Development Corporation, however, did not rectify the board. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-M/s.Pramukh Development Corporation that the Court had granted only liberty and that there was no direction and, therefore, there is no breach of the order of the Court. He submits that his clients are not preventing the petitioners as far as the other directions given by the Court are concerned. He submits that his clients also are not preventing the petitioners from putting up a board as per the liberty granted. Ordinarily, after an order was passed by this Court on 6-10-2008, it was incumbent upon the respondents to rectify the notice as per the order. But since again this Court had used the word liberty , the respondents seem to have been enjoying that liberty. All the same, this 4 CP-4.09 abuse of the liberty would not amount to contempt because there is no specific direction from this Court which has been defied. In these circumstances, the petitioner may put up an appropriate notice board along side the notice board of the respondent-M/s.Pramukh Development Corporation, not only clarifying what was stated in clause (vi) of the order dated 16-2-2008 but also clarifying as to what happened thereafter and may, if so advised, reproduce the entire orders passed by this Court on 16-2-2008 and 6-10-2008 as well as today's order so that the public is not left in doubt as to what has happened. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that instead of doing all this, the petitioner may be permitted to correct the board put by the respondents. Since this Court had granted liberty to both the parties to put up the board, let the respondents' board stay as it is and let the petitioner also put up its board depicting the correct position. 5. The petition is disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)