1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.186/2006 in WP No.6134/2005 Mrs. Aloka w/o Late Jaigopal Biswas Vs. Anand Narayanrao Khobragade Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R.S. Sundaram, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7th JUNE 2010. 1. Heard. 2. Writ Petition No. 6134/2005 came to be filed by the flat purchaser against the builder/developer. Indeed, the writ- petitioner got the rights in the property to be developed by virtue of inter-se arrangement with the developer and she became the flat purchaser. Non-compliance of terms resulted in Writ Petition No. 6134/2005, made the parties to settle the same by filing compromise petition, which is at page no. 16 of the paper book. The specifications of flat no.204 are referred at Annexures I and II. 3. Counsel for the petitioner informs, in spite of there being consent terms, the terms are flouted by the alleged contemnor, as her name is not recorded in the City Survey due to the controversy with earlier owner and consequently the petitioner is not getting marketable title, if she desires to dispose of the flat. Lift is not provided. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent (alleged 2 contemnor) informs the specification in Schedule I and II are adhered to completely and so far as lift is concerned, it is by way of common contribution from the flat occupiers. It is to be erected during the course of specification, he informs that still at least 5-6 flat occupiers have not complied with their contribution to erect the lift or back up. 5. It is the matter of the record, though the arrangement in terms of the consent terms was for flat No. 204, however, to accommodate the present petitioner, at her instance she was provided flat no. 101 on first floor of which she has got possession. 6. There is a sale deed, as could be seen annexed to the affidavit in reply dated 13th October 2006. Though I find that there is little delay as the sale deed or the property was to be given completed up to April 2006 and the sale deed is dated 13th October 2006, however, by that itself, will not be to the credit or laxity of the alleged contemnor, as it was change of the flat no.204 to flat no. 101 at the behest of the petitioner which added to the delay in the matter. The consent terms recorded at Annexure I and II are strictly adhered to by the parties The receipt passed by the petitioner also illustrates she has no grievance. 7. In the light of the above situation, non-transfer of the name of the developer in the City Survey, by itself, will not tentamount to action of any contempt. So far as lift is concerned, the difficulties are not within the control and realms of the respondent as it is the common contribution by the flat 3 owners which the flat owners are deliberately dragging. 8. In this view of situation, there is no merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed. The respondent discharged. (K.U. Chandiwal ) JUDGE Ambulkar.