1 wp5528-11.sxw jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5528 OF 2011 Yeshwant Sukdeo Gaikwad and others .. Petitioners Versus M/s Pooja Enterprises and others .. Respondents Mr.H. R. Pawar, for the Petitioner Mr. S.K. Shinde, i/by Mr. P. D. Jadhav for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 2nd September, 2011 P. C. 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. This writ petition is filed against the order dated 3rd February, 2011, passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Contempt Notice of Motion No. 2840 of 2010. 3. The Petitioners- original plaintiffs have filed a Suit ( L.C.Suit No.1649/10) under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act against the defendant- Builders & Developers. The petitioners are successful in getting interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) (b) and (c) to the Notice of Motion No. 2 wp5528-11.sxw 2089/2010 which was filed in the Suit and decided on 6th August, 2010 by the City Civil Court. The petitioners moved a notice of motion under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure for contempt against the violation of the order dated 6th August, 2010. The said notice of motion was dismissed by order dated 3rd February, 2011, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the impugned order so also the order dated 6th August, 2011, passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai. 5. It appears from the record that while directing the defendants to submits accounts of 140 flats/shops, no time frame was given and therefore, the City Civil Court has rightly held that it may not be considered to be a contempt or breach of the interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents-defendants submits at Bar that today, the defendants are handing over the accounts of 140 flats/shops to the petitioners. He further submits that no construction is carried out and as per the 3 wp5528-11.sxw case of the petitioners, there is no breach of the relief granted in terms of prayer clause (c). In view of these facts and circumstances, the order passed by the City Civil Court need not be interfered with. There is no merit in the petition. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)