1 cp-381.09 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 381 OF 2009 Mukesh Shankar Purav. .. Petitioner (Org. Appellant ) Vs Sudhir Naik & Others. .. Respondents -- Shri P.G. Lad for the Petitioner. Shri A.Y. Sakhare i/by Shri M.M. Malvankar for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The breach alleged is of an interim order passed by this Court dated 19th August, 2007 by which a temporary injunction was granted till disposal of the First Appeal restraining the Respondents therein from acting upon the notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 dated 8th January, 1994 and the order passed on the basis of the said notice on 12th March, 1994. It is not in dispute that on 6th November, 2008, a notice was issued under Section 354A of the said Act by the 2 cp-381.09 Municipal Corporation to the Petitioner alleging that erection of GI Sheet compound wall has been carried out. The allegation in the Contempt Petition is that on the basis of the said notice under Section 354A of the said Act, what are demolished are the structures described as “I”, “J” and “K” in the notice dated 8th January, 1994 in respect of which the temporary injunction was granted. There are specific assertions in Paragraph 7 of the Contempt Petition stating that on 7th November, 2008, the structures described as “I”, “J” and “K” were demolished. There is a reply filed on record contending that the said three structures were not demolished and what was demolished was the GI Sheet compound wall described in the subsequent notice dated 6th November, 2008. 3. This Court had called upon the Municipal Corporation to produce the record relating to the demolition. The Detection Register contains an entry of 6th November, 2008 recording unauthorized construction of GI Sheet compound wall and an entry of notice under Section 354 A of the said Act. It records that the unauthorized construction was demolished on 7th November, 2008. The Demolition Register is also produced before the Court which records that what was demolished on 7th November, 2008 was the GI Sheet compound wall. True photo copies of the action papers are also tendered on record which show that what was demolished on 7th November, 2008 was the GI Sheet compound wall. Even the articles collected after demolition show that what was demolished was the GI Sheet compound wall supported by bamboos. 3 cp-381.09 4. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the allegations made in the Contempt Petition of the willful breach of the order of injunction granted by this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that if the officers of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation visit the site, it will become obvious that the structures marked by the the letters “I”. “J” and “K” have been demolished. 6. The scope in the contempt petition is very limited. Suffice it to say that on perusal of the affidavit in reply and the original record produced by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that a prima facie case of committing breach of injunction granted by this Court is made out. No case is made out to proceed further. The Petition is disposed of. However, it will be open for the Petitioner to take out appropriate application in the pending appeal as regards the structures which are allegedly demolished. (A.S.OKA, J)