1 CP-235-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 235 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6339 OF 2005 IN SMALL CAUSES COURT APPEAL NO.466 OF 2003 Mr. Behram Jamshed Mistry & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. John P Crasto & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Behram Jamshed Mistry, petitioner in person present in Court. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 26th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the petitioner in person. He points out that in Writ Petition No.6339/2005 on 29.3.2006, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo, but inspite of that, on 30.3.2007, the respondent had created third party interest. This fact came to the notice of the petitioner on 11.2.2011. According to him, creation of third party interest amounts to contempt of the Court as it is in violation of the order dated 29.3.2006. 2. The order dated 29.3.2006 reads thus : 2 CP-235-11.sxw "1. Heard both sides. 2. Matter to be heard finally at the stage of admission. Place the matter on board in the 2nd week of June, 2006. 3. In the meantime parties shall maintain status-quo." It shows that the matter was to be placed for admission in the second week of June, 2006 and, in the meantime, parties were to maintain status quo. According to the petitioner, the Writ Petition was admitted and it is pending for final hearing. However, he is unable to point out any order passed in the writ petition or any application in the writ petition to show that the status quo order is still in operation or was directed to continue till decision of the Writ Petition. As per the order dated 29.3.2006, status quo order was to be operative till the next date which would be sometime in second week of June, 2006. According to the petitioner, third party interest was created on 30.3.2007. As there is nothing to show that the status quo order was in operation on 30.3.2007, it cannot be said that contempt of Court was committed. 3. Therefore, the Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)