1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CONTEMPT PETITION NO.13 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2006 1. Pundolik Rama Gad, 2. Shantibai, P. Gad, Both residents of Gaunkarwaddo, Usgao, Ponda, Goa ... Petitioners/ (Original Appellants) Versus 1. Ganesh P. Deulkar, Resident of Tiska, Usgao, Ponda, Goa. 2. Vasant P. Deulkar, 3. Tulsi w/o Vasant Deulkar, 4. Vasudev P. Deulkar, All resident Gaukarwado, Usgao, Goa. .. Respondents (Original Respondents) Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms G.Kale, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN,J. DATE : 25 th August, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 2 1. This is appellants' petition for punishing the respondents for breach of orders passed by this Court on 8.3.2007. 2. On 8.3.2007, while admitting second appeal, this Court passed following order : “ By consent of parties, respondents shall be allowed to repair the hut which is the subject matter of the suit according to the convenience of the respondents. The parties shall otherwise maintain status quo. ” 3. According to the petitioners (original appellants) in the guise of repairs, which were permitted by order dated 8.3.2007, the respondents replaced walls and roof of the hut and also increased the plinth area. In place of mud wall, now there are walls of laterite stones plastered with cement. The thatched roof has been replaced with roof of manglore tiles, an open varanda has been enclosed into the house and there is also a slight shift in the structure. The petitioners have filed necessary photographs in support of their contentions. 4. The respondents have filed reply not disputing that they have in fact replaced the hut by a structure having walls of laterite stones and manglore tiles' roof in place of thatched leaf roof. According to them, this 3 amounted to repairs, which respondents were permitted to carry out according to their convenience. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents. I have gone through the record. It seems that in this case, fortunately, a Commissioner had been appointed, who carried out inspection of the site and filed his report on 5.2.98. The same Commissioner was again required to inspect the premises in this petition and has filed a report dated 29.11.2007, which is eloquent. It seems that the respondents, taking undue advantage of the use of words “according to the convenience” in the order dated 8.3.2007, chose to change the entire structure when all that thye were permitted to carry out was repairs. The nature of structure should not have been changed by them. It is thus, clear that they are in breach of the orders passed by this Court. 6. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The properties of the respondents shall be attached and shall be put to sale, if within a period of one year, they do not restore the premises to the situation as it existed in the Commissioner's report dated 5.2.98, albeit in a well repaired state. R. C. CHAVAN, J. SMA 4