: 1 : conp-19-10=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 19 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3117 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 2611 OF 2006 Sarvadaman M. Doshi & Anr. .. Petitioners v/s. Virendra Maneklal Vora & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Nimay Dave i/by M/s. Bachubhai Munim & Co. for the petitioners ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 15th OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. As per the order dated 23rd August, 2006, the Bank of India defendant no.1 in the aforesaid suit were permitted to assign the decree. In terms of clause 4 of the said order, the Bank of India did assign the said decree in favour of respondent no.1 by Deed of Assignment dated 21st September 2007. In the Deed of Assignment, certain properties are descried as factory premises mortgaged to Bank of India being schedule-I. Respondent no. 1 thereafter, created further assignment by document dated 29th : 2 : conp-19-10=.sxw January, 2008 in favour of M/s. Rajesh Estates and Nirman Ltd. It is apparent that the said document could not be registered within the specified period and that is why respondent no.1 as well as said M/s. Rajesh Estates and Nirman Ltd. thought it fit to execute the Deed of Confirmation dated 15th September, 2008 so as to confirm the Deed of Assignment dated 29th January, 2008. In the said Deed of Confirmation, schedule I is enclosed which gives details of factory premises which was mortgaged to the bank. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that by this Deed of Confirmation, not only the decree but the properties have been transferred. 3. I am unable to accept this argument because Deed of Assignment dated 29th January, 2008 if read, clearly indicates that what was transferred by the said document was decrees which were received by respondent no.1 from Bank of India. Even in the Deed of Assignment executed by Bank of India in favour of respondent no.1, description of the properties mortgaged to the bank is given. It is basic rule that the Deed of Confirmation is executed by and between the parties only to see and only to reiterate what has been stated in the earlier document and to comply with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. In my : 3 : conp-19-10=.sxw view, execution of the Deed of Confirmation and mentioning of the properties in Schedule I has no effect of transferring the properties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made a grievance that this Deed of Confirmation is registered in book no. I of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. 4. Today, the Court is concerned with the point as to whether respondents have committed contempt. I am inclined to observe that no prima-facie case is made out and also the respondents have committed the contempt. If the petitioners are aggrieved by registration of Deed of Confirmation and mentioning of the same in book No. I, it will be open for them to adopt appropriate proceedings to have that registration cancelled and have it entered into another book. This of course, shall be done by giving notice to all concerned parties. No prima-facie case is made out. Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)