- 1 - ca38.11 ssk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2011 IN CONTEMPT PETITION STAMPT NO. 12738/2011 Roger A. D'Souza and Ors. .. Applicants V/s. Smt. Kamla Bhihari Lulla and Ors. Ms. Neha Palshikar Bhide for the Applicants Smt. Kamla Bhihari Lulla w/o. Bhiharilal Jhamansingh Lulla- in- person- Respondent No. 1 present in Court. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J DATE: 11th August, 2011 P.C. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 who is present in person. 2. It appears that in Civil Application No. 5324 of 2000 in First Appeal No. 802 of 2000 filed by the Petitioner, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to be appointed as agents of the Court Receiver and remain in possession of the suit property and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were also - 2 - ca38.11 directed not to create any third party interest or effect construction on the suit property. The ad-interim order therein was made absolute on 22nd August 2000. According to Petitioner, inspite of the said order the Respondent No. 2 has disposed of 50% of his share in the suit property in favour M/s. Solitaire Construction and has also parted with possession on 27th October, 2007 as disclosed by him in his Affidavit filed in March, 2009. This Application is moved for condonation of delay in filing the Contempt Petition beyond the period of one year. 3. On perusal of the said Affidavit and in view of the statement made by the Advocate for the Petitioner, it is clear that the Appeal was dismissed in default due to non- compliance of conditional order on 17th June, 2005. Condition was to be fulfilled within 3 weeks. Therefore, on expiry of 3 weeks i.e., on 17th June, 2005, the Appeal was dismissed. Thus, after dismissal of that order, there was no interim order in force because all the interim orders also go along with the main Appeal. It is pointed out that the Appeal was restored on 29th August, 2007 with liberty to Appellant to apply for interim relief if any. The Learned Counsel for Petitioner could not point out that any such application was made and any such relief was granted at the time of restoration of Appeal. In the Affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 Shri Yogeshkumar Santdas Jaisingh, it is stated that on - 3 - ca38.11 10th and 26th July, 2007 he had issued public notice about intention to sell the suit property calling objections, if any. On 22nd October, he transferred his 50% shares to M/s. Solitaire Constructions. According to him no interim relief was operating at that time. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not point out that any interim relief was operating from 29th August, 2007 when the Appeal was restored. Secondly, the Affidavit was filed by the Respondent No. 2 in March, 2009 which made clear away to the Petitioner that the property was sold and thus if any breach of the Court was committed by the said transfer That was brought to the notice of the Petitioner in March, 2009 by filing Affidavit. However, the Contempt Petition alongwith present Application was filed in March, 2011 There is no valid explanation for such a long delay. The cognizance of the contempt can be taken within one year as per the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act. I did not see any valid reason to condone the delay 5. Therefore, this application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. J.H.BHATIA, J