1 conp90-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Contempt Petition No. 90 of 2010 in Appeal No. 699 of 1995 Suit No. Petition No.17 of 1992 Yogindra Navinchandra Mafatlal & Others .. Petitioners v/s. Anjali Namdeo Ingle nee Nandini Ramchandra Dhuri ..Respondents Mr.A.B.Borkar & Mr. Suraj Almeida for the Petitioner Mr.R.A.Shah i/b. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the Respondent No.4 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 28th February, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner Mr.D.M.patel has filed this contempt petition against Mr.Y.M.Mafatlal, Mr. H.J. Thakore, Mr. N .V. Aiyar who are respondent nos.1 to 3. M/s. Santacruz Residents Association is shown as respondent no.4. Mrs. Anjali Ingle is merely shown as respondent without any serial number. 2 conp90-10.sxw 2. The respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 are stated to have filed Testamentary Petition No.6868 of 1994 in this court to have Will of late Dr. Mujibhai S. Patel (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased) probated. That probate was granted. Mrs. Anjali Ingle filed Misc. Petition No.17 of 2002 for revocation. By order dated 17.8.1995 probate granted in favour of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 was revoked. Mrs. Ingle had filed another separate Testamentary Probate Petition No.507 of 1992 propounding the Will of said deceased. 3. Against the Order dated 11.8.1995, respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 filed the appeal in this Court being Appeal No.699 of 1995. Ad-interim order was passed on 29.9.1995 directing the parties to maintain status quo in regard to the property shown as Shanti Sadan. Said appeal was disposed off by order dated 5.4.1996 and the order of status quo was continued. It is seen that the appeal is disposed of by order dated 2.5.2003. 4. This contempt petition is filed by the Petitioner for the purpose of taking action against the respondent nos.1 to 3 for violating the order dated 5.4.1996 mentioned above. 3 conp90-10.sxw 5. Petition is also filed against the respondent no.4 for knowingly purchasing the property despite the order of the Court by which the status quo was ordered. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that despite the order dated 5.4.1996 respondent nos.1 to 3 got their names mutated on record in 2001. According to the petitioner he came to know about this mutation in the record in the year 2009. According to the petitioner, bringing name of respondent nos.1 , 2 and 3 on record in the year 2001 amounts to violation of order of status quo which was running in the year 2001. 7. So far as this aspect is concerned, the claim of the petitioner that they came to know about the mutation in the Government record in 2009 is not supported by any material, except the bare word. It is true that the certified copy of City Survey Record appears to have been issued in August 2009, In my view, that by itself does not mean that the petitioner came to know about the said mutation in the year 2009. In my view, the averment in the petition that the petitioner came to 4 conp90-10.sxw know about the mutation in the year 2009 is absolutely vague and without any details. It was necessary for the petitioner to state as to how he gathered the information about mutation only in 2009. It is not stated as to who disclosed to him the said information. It is noticed that the petitioner has claimed the substantive interest in the property. Even the day on which this information was gathered is not stated in this petition. In the absence of clear averments as to how the petitioner came to know about the mutation in the year 2009 it is difficult to accept the bare word of the petitioner. In my view, the petitioner has chosen to mention the year 2009 while filing this petition in January 2010 only to suit the convenience so as to cover the delay in filing this petition. The case of the petitioner is required to be disbelieved. In any case, the appeal has been settled and is disposed of by order dated 2.5.2003. Keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this contempt petition is not required to be admitted so far as the respondent nos.1 to 3. 8. So far as the respondent no.4 i.e. M/s. Santa Cruz Residents Association it is contended by the petitioner that this respondent no.4 purchased the property after full knowledge of the orders dated 5 conp90-10.sxw 29.9.1995 and 5.4.1996 passed in Appeal No.699 of 1995. 9. Learned Counsel Mr. Shah who is appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 for the purpose of assisting the Court submitted that the respondent No.4 had purchased the property way back on 15.6.1987 i.e. before the Order dated 29.9.1995 came to be passed. 10.It is to be noted that the City Survey Record Extract entry as of 8.5.2001 made in favour of the respondent no.4 is noted on the basis of city survey record and the explanation for the said entry is that the mutation has been done to bring the name of respondent no.4 in terms of consent decree No.611 of 1997 and Index II. 11.Apart from the statement made by learned Counsel Mr. Shah for Respondent No.4, in the body of the petition there are no averments whatsoever to justify taking action against respondent no.4. If it was the stand of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 knew the order dated 29.9.1995 the petitioners could have clearly stated in the petition as to how the the said order was known to the respondent no. 4. In the absence of appropriate averments to satisfy the court that 6 conp90-10.sxw the respondent no.4 has violated the order, the contempt petition cannot be admitted against the respondent no.4. 12.For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the petition cannot be admitted. It is to be rejected at the stage of admission. Hence the order ORDER i) The petition is rejected. ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the High Court Legal Aid Committee, Bombay. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]