-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Contempt Petition No. 67 of 2007 in Notice of Motion No.3008 of 2005 in Suit No. 76 of 2005 1. Harikishan R.Bhattad and others ..Petitioners vs. Akhtar Hasan Rizvi son of Manjoor Hasan ..Respondent Mr.T.N.Subramaniyam with Mr.Simil Purohit i/b M/s Vimadalal and Co. for petitioners. Mr.Jai Chinai, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Vaishali Dholakia i/b Mr.M.J.Shetty for respondent CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J 17th October,2007 17th October,2007 17th October,2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The contempt petition is filed by the petitioners who are original applicants in Notice of Motion No.3008 of 2005 and defendant nos. 58 to 60 in suit no.76 of 2005. 2. It is their case that the respondent before me is the plaintiff in the suit and respondent in the Notice of Motion referred to above. 3. There is an order passed by Division Bench of this Court while dipsosing of an appeal being -2- Appeal No.769 of 2005 in Chamber Summons No.452 of 2005 which was directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on this Chamber Summons. The Chamber Summons was moved by the petitioners/original applicants in that suit. The respondent challenged that order before the Hon’ble Division Bench and while the Division Bench was considering the request made by the respondent to withdraw the appeal and suit, it directed as under: "For a period of four weeks, status quo as regards the possession that was ordered to be maintained by the Supreme Court in the order dated 16.12.2005 shall continue to operate." A bare reading of the same would indicate that the Hon’ble Division Bench continued, for a period of four weeks, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16th December, 2005. 4. It would be convenient to reproduce the said order at this stage itself: "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the -3- Division Bench of the High Court should determine the question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal at the earliest and if possible dispose of the entire appeal by the next date fixed. We would request the High Court to take up the hearing of the matter within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the mean time, status quo as regards possession as far as the petitioners before us are concerned shall be maintained." 5. The present petitioners were the one who had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court to challenge an interim order in the appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus directed that status quo as regards the possession of the present petitioners should be maintained. 6. It is this order which has been continued by the Division Bench as observed aforesaid. This order is continued in the above notice of motion on 14th February, 2006. 7. Mr.Subramaniayam the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would urge that the order passed by this Court has been violated by the -4- respondents in as much as the Deed of Conveyance, a copy of which is at Exh.K to the contempt petition, has been executed on 28th February, 2006 between the vendors, who are the original defendants and the present respoenent as purchaser. It is contended that by inserting a specific recital of the respondent being put in possession of the property as a lawful purchaser, the order passed by Division Bench and continued by the learned Single Judge of this Court as above has been disobeyed. 8. Relevant recital in the conveyance appears at page 234 and reads thus: "..AND THAT it shall be lawful for the purchaser from time to time and at all times hereafter peaceably and quietly to hold use, occupy, possess and enjoy the said premises hereby granted, conveyed, transfered and assured with their appurtenances and receive the rents issues and profit thereof and of every part thereof to and for its own use and benefit without any suit, lawful eviction, interruption, claim and demand whatsoever from or by the Vendors or their successors and assigns or any of them from -5- or by any person lawfully or euiitably claiming or to claim by, from, under or in trust for them or any of them..." 9. Mr.Chinai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand disputes this contention and submits that in reply affidavit it has been clarified that the respondent has never interfered with the possession of the petitioners. All that the respondetn has done is to obtain a title to the property. He invites my attention to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and which is continued till date. Mr.Chinai submits that the order does not prohibit or prevent the respondent or the parties to the suit from executing any conveyance. All that it directs is that the status quo with regard to the possession of the petitioners in the suit property shall be maintained. That has been maintained in as much as what is purported to be conveyed by the recitals reproduced above is only the symbolic possession or constructive possession. Physical possession of the proeprty by the petitioners has not been in any manner disturbed. 10. It is his grievance that the contempt petition is nothing but an attempt by the petitioners to -6- nullify the conveyance deed. It is an attempt to pressurise the present respondent to part with his right, title and interest in the property. In this behalf my attention is invited by Mr.Chinai to paras 26 and 27 of the affidavit in reply. 11. Having perused the contempt petition and the annexures thereto, including the order passed by this Court, following the directions of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that this contempt petition deserves to be dismissed. The contempt petition does not anywhere allege that the physical possession of the petitioners has in any manner been disturbed or obstructed by the respondent. The averments in the contempt petition convey nothing but an attempt to do so by execution of the conveyance. That execution of the conveyance deed or having the same presented before the authority for registration is not prohibited by the order, is apparent to me. In such circumstances, and more particularly when the contempt petition could not prove that their physical possession is being disturbed in any manner, the contempt petition is thoroughly misconceived. I find much substance in the contention of Mr.Chinai that attempt on the part of the petitioners is to pressurise the respondent into parting his right, title and -7- interest, if any, in respect of the immovable property under the conveyance deed. Contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)