1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY & ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 22 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 1055 OF 1989 IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. 745 OF 2007 Mrs. Snehalata wd/o. Sohanlal Bnsiram Ghai. ... Petitioner. V/s. Sheela Sohanlal Ghai & Ors. ... Respondents. And Sheela Sohanlal Ghai & Ors. ... Contemners. Mr. P.G. Lad for the Petitioner. Mr. Rushabh Shah i/b. Raval Shah for Respondents 1,2 and 5. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 3rd NOVEMBER 2009. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Lad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for Respondents - Contemnors 1,2 and 4. Mr. Lad appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has invited my attention to the order passed by this Court on 30th April 2007 admitting this Contempt Petition and states that the stand of the Respondents was placed before the Court on affidavits and yet this Court proceeded to admit the Petition and issued a show cause notice calling upon the Contemners/concerned Respondents to show cause as to why they should not be punished for deliberate and willful breach 2 of the order of this Court. 2. Mr. Lad submits that the property is custodia legis as observed by this Court in the order dated 30th April 2007. The Court Receiver is in possession of the property from April 1989. His appointment is confirmed by the final order dated 24th April 1995 in Notice of Motion No.925 of 1989. He submits that during the possession and appointment of the Court Receiver, an attempt is made to deal with the property. The attempts are pointed out in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Contempt Petition. The letters addressed to the Society, the Electricity Company and to the Telephone Department would go to show that despite the property being custodia legis and in possession of the Court Receiver, the Respondents 1 to 5 have interfered with the possession and authority of the Receiver. Any attempt to deal with the property when the same is custodia legis is a clear contempt and therefore, the Court must deal with the Contemnors appropriately. 3. Mr. Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondents 1,2 and 5 on the other hand contends that in the affidavit in reply the position has been amply clarified. Respondent Nos.1,2 and 5 have done nothing which would amount to dealing with the property or interfering with the possession of the Court Receiver. They are occupying the property and are in possession thereof as agents of the Court Receiver. It is only to obtain electricity connection and revival of the telephone facility that the letters in question were 3 addressed. By sheer inadvertence and not as a matter of any deliberate act, the Court Receiver was not informed. In any event, the letters are much prior to the final orders in the Notice of Motion. At no stage, during the pendency of the Notice of Motion, did the Petitioner – Plaintiff bring it to the notice of the Court the acts attributed to these Respondents. In these circumstances, for stale and old allegations and charges this Court should not take any action much less a drastic one under the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971. 4. Having perused the Contempt Petition and more particularly, paragraphs 4 to 6 thereof, so also Annexures thereto, and the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent Nos.1,2 and 5, I am of the view that this is not a case for proceeding against the concerned Respondent – Contemnors in Civil Contempt. The affidavit amply clarifies the circumstances in which the communications were addressed. It is not as if this fact was not known to the Plaintiffs/Petitioners inasmuch as they have alleged that the letters were written to the Society, Electricity Company and the Telephone Department. An attempt is made to show that these letters were written after final orders in the Notice of Motion. However, that allegation is specifically denied and on the other hand it is asserted that the communications were much prior to the final orders in the Notice of Motion. 5. In these circumstances, and when the communications read as a whole do not reflect any attempt to interfere with 4 the possession of the Court Receiver and disturbing the status-quo at site, I am of the view that this Petition does not disclose any case of Civil Contempt. The same is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. 6. At the joint request of parties, place the Suit for directions with regard to recording of evidence on Friday, 13th November 2009. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)