:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO.9 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.9 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.9 OF 2007 Shri Prakash Pannalal Tatiya & Anr. ...Petitioners. v. Shri Satish Dnyaneshwar Gaikwad & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Tushar N. Sonawane i/by M.M.Sathaye , advs. for the Petitioners. Mr.A.S.Rao, adv. for the Respondent No.1. Shri Suraj Kudalkar i/by Shri M.S.Kumthekar, advs. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 2nd April, 2008. DATE: 2nd April, 2008. DATE: 2nd April, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. To state in brief, the petitioners have filed Special Civil Suit No.260 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Nashik for specific performance of contract to sell of the suit land, gat no.549 (Old No.1150) situated within the limits of Mauje Mundhegaon, Taluka: Igatpuri, Dist. Nashik. They had filed an application Exhibit 5 contending that the defendant no.15 had purchased the property in spite of notice of contract with petitioners and entered into an agreement for sale. By the said application plaintiffs/petitioners sought temporary injunction restraining the respondent no.15 from alienating the property or creating third party interest. As defendant no.15 had made a statement before the trial Court that :2: he had no intention to dispose off the property, the trial Court had refused the temporary injunction. Against that the plaintiffs have preferred Appeal From Order No.562 of 2001 against the defendants/respondents. That appeal was disposed off by order dated 3rd September, 2001. In view of the submissions made by the respondent no.15 that he had no intention to dispose off the suit property and if at some stage in future, due to emergency situation, he is required to consider of disposing off the suit property, he would obtain appropriate orders from the trial Court in this behalf. In view of this submission, this Court disposed off the appeal observing that if the respondent no.15 decides or contemplates to dispose off the subject property or to create third party rights therein, he may do so only upon obtaining appropriate orders from the trial Court in this behalf and if such an application is filed by the respondent no.15, the trial Court would decide the same in accordance with law. 2. Original plaintiffs have filed present contempt petition contending that in spite of statement made by him before this Court and the directions given by this Court on 3rd September, 2001 in the appeal no.562 of 2001, respondent no.15, who is contemnor no.1 has sold away the suit property in favour of the contemnor no.2 by registered sale deed dated 13th May, 2005 without obtaining prior permission of the trial Court and thus, :3: he has committed contempt of the Court. Contemnor no.1, who is original defendant/respondent no.15 has filed his affidavit-in-reply wherein he has admitted that due to very precarious financial position and being jobless, he was in urgent requirement of some money to meet exigencies and, therefore, he had no option but to sell the property to the contemnor no.2 Narayan Krishnarao Indulkar for a consideration of Rs.2,70,000/-. He has also stated that in the circumstances, he could not obtain necessary permission of the trial Court. For this he has tendered unconditional apology in paragraph 6 of the affidavit. He has prayed that notice for contempt may be discharged subject to condition that he shall take back possession of the suit property from the respondent no.2 and shall apply to the trial Court for post facto sanction to sell the suit property to the respondent no.2. Contemnor No.2 has not filed any reply though sufficient opportunity was taken by him for this purpose. 3. In view of the facts noted above, the affidavit filed by the contemnor no.1 and on perusal of the copy of the sale deed executed by the contemnor no.1 in favour of the contemnor no.2, it becomes clear that the contemnor no.1 has committed breach of the undertaking/statement made before this Court while disposing off the Appeal From Order No.562 of 2001. He has sold the property without obtaining prior permission :4: of the trial Court. In view of the circumstances noted above and the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor no.1 and his offer to purge the contempt in my considered opinion, contempt petition may be disposed off with the following directions: i. The contemnor no.1 Satish Dnyaneshwar Gaikwad has committed contempt of the Court by committing breach of the statement made before this Court and order passed by this Court on 3rd September, 2001 in Appeal From Order No.561 of 2001. However, his unconditional apology is accepted subject to his paying cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from this day. Amount of the cost shall be deposited in the trial Court. The contemnor no.1 shall take back possession of the suit property from the respondent no.2 and shall apply to the trial Court for post facto sanction to sell the suit property to the respondent no.2. Meanwhile, contemnor/respondent no.2 Narayan Krishnarao Indulkar shall not create any third party interest nor shall make any development on the suit land pending Special Civil Suit No.260 of 1997. Even if the contemnor no.1 is permitted by the trial Court to enter into the agreement with respondent no.2, the transaction between the contemnor no.1 and respondent no.2 shall be subject to the result of the Special Civil Suit No.260 of 1997. As the suit itself is pending for the last about ten years, the trial Court :5: shall expedite hearing and dispose off the same as early as possible within six months from this day. 4. Contempt Petition stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)