1 cp211.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Application No. 63 of 2011 IN Contempt Petition No. 211 of 2011 WITH Civil Application No. 62 of 2011 IN Contempt Petition No. 176 of 2011 Smt. Shaila Marutirao Naik ...Applicant v/s. Sonabai Ramchandra Marathe & ors. ...Respondents & Mumbai Municipal Corporation ... Proposed Respondent Ms. Maya Balsara i/b. Kiran Bhalerao for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Dave for respondents. CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. 16th September, 2011 PC: These are the applications seeking impleadment of Bombay Municipal Corporation in the Contempt proceedings initiated by the respondents. It is a matter of record that the Bombay Municipal Corporation was not party throughout the proceedings. The contempt is alleged in respect of the order passed by this Court on April 07, 2010 as well as the subsequent order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 10th January, 2011. Initially an undertaking was given to vacate the suit premises by 31st December, 2010. The undertaking dated 19th April, 2010 is placed on record. In pursuance to the application tendered by original defendant time was extended upto 31st March, 2011 for vacating the suit premises subject to applicants paying the respondents 2 cp211.11.sxw an amount of Rs. 15,000/- by way of compensation. In Contempt application it is alleged that inspite of tendering an undertaking to the Court in respect of vacation of premises by 31st March, 2011, the respondent has not vacated the suit premises and thus has committed contempt of the order passed by this Court. In these proceedings, impleadment of Bombay Municipal Corporation according to me is not at all warranted. The applicant may, if advised, may adopt other appropriate remedies permissible in accordance with law. The applications are devoid of substance. 2. Hence, both applications stand rejected. (R.M.BORDE, J)