1 37.conp-33-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 33 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 409 OF 2007 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2499 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 264 OF 2007. M/s. O.P. Enterprises. ..Petitioners. vs. Anandi Anant Patil & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. D. Deshpande, i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Ass., for Petitioners. None for Respondents. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 7TH OCTOBER 2011. P.C. : By this Petition, the Petitioners have alleged that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and each of them have deliberately, intentionally and willfully violated the orders dated 9th February 2007, 11th April 2007 and 29th July 2008 passed by this Court. It is submitted that by the said orders, the Respondents were restrained by an order of injunction from selling, transferring, alienating and/or creating any third party rights and/or entering into an Agreement with any third party. Subsequently, by an order dated 29th July 2008, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay was appointed to take symbolic possession of the Suit property. It is alleged that even after the Court Receiver was appointed, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have allowed third parties to encroach on the Suit property. In support thereof, the Petitioner has relied on certain photographs. However, 2 37.conp-33-11 the said photographs do not establish that the encroachment have been put up on the Suit plot subsequent to the orders passed by this Court. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners now relies on the statement made by the Respondent No.3 before the Police Authorities. I have perused the said statement dated 2nd May 2011 made by the Respondent No.3. In the said statement, it is recorded that the Respondent No.3 had gone abroad on 12th April 2011 and when he returned to Mumbai on 19th April 2011 he observed that some persons had started residing on the Suit plot. He immediately asked them to vacate the Suit plot and also warned them not to return back to the Suit plot. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners admits that thereafter there are no encroachments on the Suit plot. 3. In view of the above, the Petitioners have failed to establish that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have deliberately and or willfully violated the orders passed by this Court dated 9th February 2007 and/or 11th April 2007 and/or 29th July 2008. No case of contempt is therefore made out against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The Contempt Petition is therefore dismissed. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]