1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 20 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.11/2002. Shri Maximiano Donato Zuzarte Bocarro, retired, son of Joaquim Donato Bocarro, resident of Santa Cruz, Ilhas, Goa presently residing at Portugal, represented by his duly constituted Attorney Miss Maria Santana Lilia Zuzarto Bocarro, r/o. At Siolim, Bardez, Goa. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. Mrs. Satyavati Tukaram Naik Salgaonkar, widow of Tukaram Naik Salgaonkar, Siolim, Bardez, Goa. 2. Mr. Ashok Tukaram Naik Salgaonkar alias Ashok Tucarama Salgaoncar, married, businessman, and his wife, 3. Mrs. Pushpalata Ashok Naik Salgaonkar, alias Pushpalata Narvencar Both residing near Electricity Department, Ansabhat, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa 4. Mr. Kishor Tukaram Naik Salgaoncar,alias Quisor Tucarama Naik Salgaocar, married, businessman and his wife. 5. Mrs. Usha Kishor Naik Salgaonkar 2 alias Usha Kishor Salgaonkar, Both residing at Mapusa, Bardez, Goa 6. Mr. Anand TukaramNaik Salgaonkar alias Ananda Tucarama Salgaoncar, married, businessman, and his wife, 7. Mrs. Lalan Anand Naik Salgaonkar alias Lalan Vaikunt Maidenkar, both residing at Tarchi Batty, Siolim, Bardez,Goa 8. Mr. Uday Tukaram Naik Salgaonkar alias Udai Salgaoncar, married, businessman, and his wife, 9. Mrs. Vasudha Uday Naik Salgaonkar alias Vasudha Yeshwant Mainkar, both residing at Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. 10. Mr.Shabi Tukaram Naik Salgaonkar alias Shabi T. Salgaonkar, married, businessman and his wife, 11. Mrs. Karuna Shabi Naik Salgaonkar alias Karuna Shabi Salgaonkar both residing at Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. 12. Mr. Yogshwar Tukaram Naik Salgaonkar alias Yengueshvor Tucarama Salgaocar,married, 3 businessman, and his wife 13. Mrs. Shital Yogeshwar Naik Salgaonkar alias Shital Suresh Nachinolkar both residing at Siolim, Bardez, Goa. 14. Mrs. Shoba Ankush Goltekar, alias Shoba Tukaram Salgaonkar,married, housewife and her husband 15. Mr.Ankush Goltekar both residing at Duler, Mapusa, Goa 16. Mr. Laxmikant N. Kalangutkar businessman, residing at Siolim, Bardez, Goa .. Respondents. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. N. Sardessai, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1,2,3,4, 5 to 15. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Jimi Joh, Advocate for the respondent No.16. CORAM :- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2009. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 11 th FEBRUARY, 2009. ORDER : 1. The respondent in First Appeal No.11 of 2002 has 4 filed this application for contempt of Court on the following allegations : The petitioner had filed a civil suit No.303/1989 in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. against the respondents herein. The suit was for declaration and injunction. The trial Court held that the petitioner/ plaintiff had established that the plaintiff was the owner of the property Nos. 1 and 3 and further held that Tukaram Salgaonkar's name was wrongly recorded in the revenue record. A decree for possession was also passed. The respondent contemners preferred an appeal No.11/2002 before the High Court. Along with the said appeal, they preferred stay application also and this Court passed following order while admitting the appeal and disposing of the stay application on 19.04.2002 : “P.C. Heard the learned Advocates. Admit. In the meantime status quo to be maintained. Stay appln. disposed of.” 2. The petitioner alleges that the respondent contemner Nos. 1 to 15 sold the suit property by registered sale deed dated 12.07.2005. The petitioner contends that the 5 property has been sold in flagrant disregard of the order of the Court to maintain status-quo. 3. The respondents/ contemners by their reply, do not dispute the property having been sold by them to the respondent No.16. Their contention is that they understood the order meaning that the respondents need not hand over the possession and the names of the respondents, would continue to be in the revenue record. It is also contended by them that there was no direction to the respondents not to create a third party interest or to alienate the property. Since there was no such direction, according to them, they did not commit any contempt. 4. We have seen that a decree declaring the plaintiff/ petitioner to be the owner and the defendants not being the owner, was passed and the defendants / respondents were directed to deliver the possession. The defendants/ respondents had preferred an appeal and had even preferred a stay application as stated earlier. It is apparent that on the defendants' / respondents' stay application, the Court had passed an order to maintain status-quo. The word 'status-quo' has been defined in Black's 6 dictionary to mean “the situation that currently exists”. Shri Sardessai, the learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that the Court has to basically see if there was willful disobedience and whether the order is susceptible to two interpretations. He submits that if the order is susceptible to two interpretations, the one which is favourable to the contemner, should be accepted. Shri Diniz, on the other hand, contends that the word 'status-quo' means in this case that neither party should in any manner, deal with the suit property. He submits that even though the respondents / defendants knew that the appeal is pending and there is an order of status-quo, yet they chose to transfer the property. He submits that this is a blatant disobedience of the order of the Court. 5. The act of the defendants/ respondents, has to be interpreted in the context of the order of the status-quo and the fact that the order was passed on the defendants'/ respondents' application. The law, as said earlier, is well settled that if any order is susceptible to two interpretations, then, the one favourbale to the contemners, has to be accepted. Now, it can be said that the respondents/ defendants wanted a stay to the execution of the decree and 7 as such they filed an application for stay. The Court instead of passing a clear order, has passed the status-quo order. Therefore, the status-quo order could be said to be only in respect of the final order in the suit. The word 'status-quo' as seen earlier, means 'the situation currently existing'. Currently existing situation in the context of final order in civil suit, means that the name of the defendants' predecessor, shall not be removed and the defendants would continue to be in possession as they were. It cannot mean anything more than that. To say that the defendants were not supposed to sale the property, would mean to adding something more than what is there in the final order. Had there been a decree for injunction against the defendants that they should not sale the property and the Court had passed the order of status-quo, then, perhaps it could be said that the defendants were not supposed to sale the property. The status-quo, if interpreted in the context of the final order passed in civil suit, in no case, it could be said that the defendants/ respondents were prevented from selling the property. It only meant that the plaintiff shall not take possession and the name of the defendants' predecessors', shall not be removed from the revenue record. The respondents/defendants have not done any of this. As such I 8 do not find that they had committed any contempt. The notice of contempt, therefore, stands discharged. The application is dismissed. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA