1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Contempt Petition No.19 of 2009 in Notice of Motion No.3194 of 2006. in Suit No.2605 of 2006 Naresh Madhavji Bhanushali .. Petitioner/ Org. Plaintiff v/s. Amrutlal Madhavji Bhanushali & Others ..Respondents Org. Defendants Mr.J.S.Kini i/b. Suresh Dubey for the Plaintiff. Mr.P.G.Lad for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 21st April, 2010 P.C. : 1. Petitioners have filed this contempt petition alleging that the Respondents herein have violated the order dated 7.3.2007 and 21.3.2007. The allegations of contempt revolve around shop No.7 Terawala Niwas , more particularly described in prayer clause (b) of the notice of motion. By an Order of injunction, the Respondents 2 were restrained from selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering, creating third party right or interest whatsoever or in any way altering the status quo in respect of the property i.e. shop No.7. It is the case of the Petitioner that Shop No.7 is a tenanted premises and was held by his father. Petitioner has instituted a suit for establishing his right in the shop of his father. Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 are the real brothers of the Petitioner and it is common ground that Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 are also entitled to inherit the property of the father of the Petitioner. By a Deed of Partnership, in all four persons had entered into a partnership namely Jayantilal Bhanushali, Amritlal Bhanushali, Devidas Thakkar and Hitesh Thakkar. The business of the said firm was carried out at Shop No.7 in the name and style of Anchal Creation. According to the Petitioner, business in the premises is now being carried out in the name and style as “Dheer”. Affidavit in reply has been filed by the Respondent No.1. before issuance of the show cause notice and perusal of the said affidavit in reply goes to show that though initially there were four persons who were acting as partners, two of them i.e. Devidas Thakkar and Hitesh Thakkar have left the business and the business is now being carried out by Jayantilal and Amritlal, who 3 happen to be sons of Madhavji. 2. It was sought to be argued in support of the Contempt Petition that the change in the name of the firm amounts to violation of the order of injunction and to that extent the Respondents have committed contempt. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, if the new business is being carried out in the premises it will amount to violation of the order of injunction. He prayed for issuance of contempt notice. After having considered the relevant text of the prayer clause , it is noticed that the order of injunction was granted qua the shop premises, i.e. shop No.7. There is no reference about the business to be carried out or any activity to be carried out in the said shop premises. Certainly on the day when the order of injunction was issued, the shop no.7 was being used by the partnership firm consisting of four partners. Today, if two partners have left for certain reasons and two partners continue to carry out the business, and the name of the shop i.e. the outer board of the shop is changed from Anchal Creation to Dheer, one may not be able to say that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have violated the order of the Court with reference to shop No.7. Reading the text of the prayer, I 4 am inclined to observe that the injunction was with reference to the premises Shop No.7 and not the business to be carried out over there. There is no specific order directing the Respondents that they will not change the nature of the business or constitution of the firm etc. There is nothing on record to show that the Respondents have carried out alteration in the premises such as division of one room into two rooms or any such alteration that may get covered by the Order of the injunction. It is on this count also, I am inclined to observe that the Petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case for issuance of show cause notice and hence the petition is required to be rejected at the stage of issuance of the show cause notice. 3. Petition is rejected with no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]