1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 142 OF 2008 Mahesh Vishnu Parab & Anr.. ... Petitioners. Vs. Shri Ganpat alias Ganesh Nhanu Paralkar & Ors. . ...Respondents. Mr. S.S. Redekar, for the Petitioner. Mr. S.G. Karandikar, for Respondent No.4. ..... CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 28 th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. The Petitioners are the original Appellants in Second Appeal bearing No.1514 of 2005. In the Second Appeal a Civil Application was moved by the Petitioners/Appellants being Civil Application No.2158 of 2005. 2. On that Civil Application, a Notice was issued by this Court and the learned Single Judge had passed an Order directing the parties to maintain status-quo. The submission of Shri Redekar appearing in supporting of Contempt Petition is that the Appellants’ Advocate duly served copy of this Order on the Respondents and particularly Respondent No.4 Anant Nhanu Paralkar. Acknowledgment card is produced by Shri Redekar for my perusal. He submits that despite Order of status-quo 2 granted in the Civil Application is continued, the foruth Respondent deliberately and willfully violated it by creating third party interest in the immovable property. He created mortgage thereof as is evident by Deed of Mortgage dated 19.8.2006, a copy of which produced is annexure “C” to this Contempt Petition. In the circumstances, this Court should proceed to take action for civil contempt against Respondent No.4. 3. On the other hand, Shri Karandikar appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 on notice submits that the Order passed on 27.2.2006 in this Civil Application was to continue till 13.7.2006. The communication to Respondent No.4 to this effect, does not show whether the Order is continued, in as much as there is no communication and knowledge attributed of the said fact to Respondent No.4. In such circumstances, bonafide the mortgage was created. Subsequently, Second Appeal was also disposed of. For all these reasons, Shri Karandikar submits that no case of civil contempt is made out. 4. To ascertain as to whether the Order has been duly communicated, I called for original file of the Second Appeal and the Civil Application. On perusal thereof, it is clear that the affidavit of service dated 25.4.2006 encloses therewith a copy of the letter dated 18.3.2006 which state that Order is in force till 13.7.2006. That is how acknowledgment is given by Respondent No.4. 3 5. Thereafter, Second Appeal appeared on the board but due to paucity of time it could not be taken up. It has been remarked that ad- interim order, if any, to continue. However, continuation of the said Order does not appear to have been communicated. It is in such circumstances, that there is substance in the submission of Shri Karandikar that bonafide and believing that Order is not continued beyond 13.7.2006 that the mortgage has been created. This is not deliberate and willful act but the fourth Respondent acted bonafide throughout. 6. To my mind, no action for civil contempt is called for. The Contempt Petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)