1 JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 79 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2371 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1907 OF 2006 Kamala Suyryakant Mishra. ... Petitioner. V/s. Sabhapati Rajkishore Pandey and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Yadunath Chaudhari i/b. Kunal Cheema for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 16th JUNE 2010. P.C. :- This Contempt Petition is filed alleging that the order dated 5th September 2006 passed in Notice of Motion No.2371 of 2006 is violated by the Contemnors. The Petitioner was granted injunction by the aforesaid order dated 5th September 2006 in his favour by which the Contemnors were prohibited from creating third party rights and/or parting with possession in regard to the properties mentioned in paragraphs 9,13,14 and 15 of the plaint. According to the Petitioners, the Contemnors have violated the order of the Court and the 2 alleged violations are set out in paragraph 7 of the Contempt Petition. 2. I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhari on behalf of the Petitioners to decide whether the Contempt Petition should be admitted or not. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner pointed out to me the various facts which in his submission constitute violation of the order dated 5th September 2006 and according to him the Contemnors have committed contempt. 3. I have gone through the text of the Contempt Petition. In the body of the Petition there is no specific date on which the Contemnors are said to have violated the said order. If this is the position, so far as the text of the Contempt Petition, it would be difficult for the Court to decide as to whether the lodgment of the Contempt Petition is within time or not. In my view, if a person wishes to say that a particular party has violated an order of the Court, it is necessary for him to quote the precise date on which the order has been violated or at least the date on which he first came to know about the violation of the said order. These facts are not stated in the 3 body of the Contempt Petition and therefore, the Contempt Petition cannot be entertained on merits. 4. In view of this, I am not inclined to admit the Contempt Petition and hence, the Contempt Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)