:: 1 :: rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 367 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 367 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 367 OF 2007 Mrs.Sujata Milind Rumade .. Petitioner V/s. Brahman Seva Mandal & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Dinesh Kumar Jain with Mr. J.Trivedi i/b. Mr.R.C.Shah for the Petitioner. Mr.R.S.Godbole for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 24TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATE : 24TH OCTOBER, 2008. DATE : 24TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- . No action for contempt of Court is called for. The interim order was passed by the Trial Court on 16th January, 2006. That order was carried in Appeal and the Appellate Court of Small Causes, Bombay by an order dated 28th September, 2006 modified the order. In the Writ Petition No.7776 of 2006, this Court by an order dated 27th April, 2007 intera-lia restored the order of the Trial Court. The relevant portion of the order of the Trial Court is as under : :: 2 :: " Notice is made absolute. The defendants are hereby restrained by order of mandatory injunction, in the temporary form, directing them to open the lock and permit the plaintiff, her persons, office bearers and others, those who are coming for the inquiry with them, from entering and using the suit premises for the purpose for which it was let out till final decision of the suit. The defendants are further restrained not to prevent the entry of the Plaintiff her students, office bearers or any other persons, claiming through her, in the suit premises, from 9.30 a.m. till 9.30 p.m. till the decision of this suit " . In an application for speaking to the minutes of this order, it was observed that the order of the Trial Court is clear and no clarification is required. 2. I will assume that the interpretation :: 3 :: placed on behalf of the Petitioner is a possible interpretation. The least that must be said however, is that the interpretation based on the order by Mr.Godbole is not unsustainable. 3. The only question is whether it is the Petitioner who is entitled to place the lock on the premises or if the Respondent, who is entitled to do so. Prima-facie it does appear especially on account of the variation of the order by the Appellate Court of the Small Causes Court and reinstate the order of the Trial Court of this Court that the Respondents would be entitled to do so. 4. In any event, in view of Mr.Godbole’s statement and undertaking, the rights of the Petitioner under the said order dated 16th January, 2006 are completely protected. Mr.Godbole states that the Respondents shall ensure that the premises are opened not later than 9.30 a.m. and closed not before 9.30 p.m. on all days without exception. The only exception would be if the Petitioner informs the Respondents in writing that the premises need not be opened. No arguments based on oral request shall be entertained. The statements are accepted. Further the Respondents shall not enter :: 4 :: upon the premises at any time without the leave of the Trial Court.