1 C.P.No.6/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.6 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4472 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.667 OF 2006 Sanjay s/o Mathuradas Rathi ..Petitioner Versus Dilip s/o Abarao Kashikar and ors. ..Respondents Mr A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.R.Choukidar, Advocate for respondents 1 and 4 Mr K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent No.5 Mr Y.M.Khan, Advocate for respondents 6 to 8, absent CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 30th November, 2011 PER COURT 1. Heard Mr Bajaj and Mr Choukidar, learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. On 7.6.2006, in Civil Application No.4472 of 2006 in First Appeal No.667/2006, preferred by the respondent Dilip, after hearing the respective parties, in Clause 3, this Court directed the applicant therein (Dilip Abarao Kashikar) not to create any third party interest in the suit property. Apparently, there was no variation or alteration or modification of the order dated 7.6.2006. The respondent Dilip with others, in spite of 2 C.P.No.6/2007 the enforcement and subsistence of the order, entered into a development agreement dated 3.11.2006, copy whereof is placed on record. 3. Having realised the mistake committed by the respondent Dilip, he, in his affidavit-in-reply, has tendered unconditional apology for the mistake on his behalf. He has, rectified the mistake committed by executing a cancellation of deed of development dated 4.9.2007, which is also duly registered. 4. In the above situation, I find that there was breach of the orders of this Court referred above. However, by subsequent conduct of the respondent – Dilip and others, he has corrected the mistake. 5. Now, the fact remains whether it was a deliberate action or an accidental slip. Indeed, the initial proceedings of First Appeal No. 667/2006 were of the respondent. He was consciously aware of the order and restraint flowing against him. In spite of such restraint, he entered into the questioned agreement dated 3.11.2006. He has informed that respondents have not received any consideration from the contesting respondents 6 to 8 and since the rights have been relinquished, whatever was created, there is no dispute between the parties. 3 C.P.No.6/2007 6. The survey of above facts illustrates that the respondent has caused the contempt, however, due to tendering unconditional apology, Contempt Petition is disposed of. Notices discharged. However, respondent Dilip and others shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand), payable to the petitioner. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (vvr/6.2007cp)