1 conp18-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Contempt Petition No.18 of 2010 in Suit No. 3429 of 2006 M/s. Kalpataru Ltd. .. Petitioners v/s. Mr.Robert Mathew Pereira & Others ..Respondents Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar i/b. Yasmin Bhansali & Co. for the Petitioner CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd October , 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhakephalkar. An order was passed by this Court directing the respondent no.6 to maintain status quo in respect of the property. According to the petitioners, on the land there existed structures. Plaint of Suit No.3426 of 2006 was made available to the court in which the description of the property is mentioned as land, survey numbers, along with structures. According to the petitioners, the petitioners on or about 1.2.2010 noticed a JCB Machine on the land and also noticed that demolition of the structure 2 conp18-10.sxw was going on. In so far as this aspect is concerned, relevant averments are found in para 15 of the petition. The relevant averments merely state that petitioners noticed demolition. It is to be noted that petitioner is a limited company. If this is so, it was necessary for the petitioners to state in the body of the petition as to who observed such demolition at the site and in what way such person was concerned with the petitioners. In the absence of such particulars and mere reference “to petitioners” I am inclined to observe that the averments in the petition are insufficient to treat the petition as properly put in. 2. It is sought to be argued that plans were put up to the Corporation for sanction and sanctions have been obtained from the corporation. According to the petitioners this also constitutes violation of the order by which it was directed that status quo should be maintained. I am inclined to observe that merely seeking sanction of plan for construction in future cannot termed to be contempt . What is required for contempt is initiating construction at site. 3. It was alternatively argued that the plans are put up and sanction in 3 conp18-10.sxw such a way that FSI of suit land is used to construct building on the adjacent plot of land and as such the petitioners are deprived of their right to use the land in the best possible manner. On the basis of the petition nothing could be found on the basis of which this submission is advanced. It was also pointed out to the court that actual sanction of the plant took place after filing of the petition. If this be so, this petition does not make out a clear case that by obtaining sanction, FSI of the land in question is used for construction of the adjacent land. If petitioner is able to make out appropriate case, they are free to file fresh petition. This petition does not make out a prima facie case. Therefore, petition is dismissed. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]