(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 388 OF 2004 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 388 OF 2004 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 388 OF 2004 Hanumansaran Mishra ...Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporatin of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents ..... None for the Petitioner Mr. A.J. Bhor, counsel for Respondent No.1. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2005 DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2005 DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2005 P. C.:- P. C.:- P. C.:- 1. None for the petitioner who has alleged that while disposing of Appeal from Order No.220 of 2004, this Court by order dated 6.4.2004 had directed the respondents Corporation not to demolish the subject structure unless the application submitted by the petitioner was decided. 2. Mr. Bhoir, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 Corporation on instructions states that the petitioner’s application was decided on 21.5.2004, he was granted two weeks further time and thereafter on 10.6.2004 the structure was demolished more so because the petitioner failed to submit the (-2-) undertaking furnished before this Court to hand over the subject structure to the Corporation. 3. Hence, there is no case to take cognizance of contempt of the Court. The petition is therefore, rejected.