1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Contempt Petition No.90 of 2009 in Suit No.36 of 2009 Rajesh Vora & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Vijay Lakhani & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.S.S.Joshi for the Petitioners Mr.S.A.Bhalwal i/b.Vyas & Bhalwal for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.Tushar Bhavsar i/b. Manoj Bhat for the Respondent No.3 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 12th April, 2010 P.C. : 1. The Contempt Petition came to be filed by the Petitioners being Contempt Petition No.22 of 2009 in Suit No.36 of 2009 alleging therein that the undertaking given by the respondents in terms of minutes of order dated 22.8.2007 were not complied with and compensation amount agreed to be paid in terms of the aforesaid minutes of order was also not paid. The 2 said contempt petition was heard and by Order dated 24.9.2009 the said contempt petition was disposed of with certain observations. 2. According to the petitioners, the respondents have violated the order dated 24.7.2009 passed in Contempt Petition No.22 of 2009 and hence this petition is filed. 3. I have heard learned Advocats on both sides. According to learned Advocate Mr. Joshi, the Court had directed the respondents to do certain positive acts and because those positive acts were not fulfilled, the petitioners have filed this contempt petition. 4. I have perused the minutes of Order dated 17.8.2007 as also the order dated 24.7.2009. 5. The grievance of the petitioners that respondents have violated the undertaking dated 17.8.2009 was dealt with by the Court in detail and the said petition came to be disposed of. Certainly the respondents were not punished under the Contempt jurisdiction and infact no action was taken against the respondents. 3 6. The petitioners contend that certain direction were issued to the respondents, If that is the position, the Court has adequately taken care of the alleged violation of undertaking dated 17.8.2007. It is the stand of the petitioners that the respondents have not complied with the said orders contained in the Order dated 24.7.2009. If the order dated 24.7.2009 is not followed the Petitioners cannot move the court alleging that the respondents have committed contempt. If certain orders are passed against the respondents, the Petitioners will have to file appropriate proceedings for enforcement of those orders. Taking out contempt petition is no an answer to that. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to observe that this is not a case where the court should exercise its contempt jurisdiction and proceed further. The Contempt Petition is required to be dismissed. Hence the Order. ORDER Contempt Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. [R.Y.GANOO, J.] 4