1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITIION NO. 260 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITIION NO. 260 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITIION NO. 260 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 6166 OF 1969 SHEROO FRAMROZE PATEL ... PETITIONER VERSUS MR CYRUS ADI PRINTER & Ors. ... RESPONDENTS Mr. J.S.Kini, Advocate, i/b. Mr. Suresh Dubey, Advocate, fo the petitioner. Mr. A.C.Singh, Advocate, i/b. Mr. D.R.Shah, Advocate, for respondents Nos.1, 3 & 4. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. To state in brief, Suit No.6502 of 1969 was 2 filed by the present petitioner. A counter Suit No.6166 of 1969 was filed by Jerbanoo Printer and two others against the present petitioner and two others. In both the suits there was a prayer for removal of the defendants from post of trustees. In view of these two counter suits for removal of the trustees of the said Trust, admittedly, on 26th July, 1982, a Receiver was appointed by the Court to take over possession of the properties of the Trust. It appears that in Suit No.6166 of 1969, preliminary decree was passed on 28.2.1990 and the Commissioner for Taking Accounts was directed to take accounts of the Trust from the defendants therein. The learned Counsel for the parties inform that both the suits are still pending and final decree is not yet passed. The respondents are said to be the L.Rs of plaintiff No.3 - Adi Printer in Suit no.6166 of 1969. 3. In this Contempt Petition, it was alleged by the contempt petitioner, who was the original defendant No.2, that inspite of appointment of the Court Receiver and the possession of the Court Receiver over the suit property, the respondents had illegally and without any permission opened the lock of the flat No.2, Najoo Mansion, Nawab Tank Bridge, Mazgaon, Bombay and had thus committed breach of the order of the Court and thus they 3 have committed contempt of the Court. 4. At the outset, Mr. Kini, learned Counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that the contemnor No.2 - Keki Dinshaw Printer is not in the country and, therefore the Contempt Petition is pressed only against respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4. 5. Respondent No.1 - Cyrus Adi Printer had filed his affidavit dated 14.9.2007 for and on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in which he had denied that they had taken forcible possession by breaking open the lock. He had taken several defences, while offering unconditional apology. Now, respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have filed fresh affidavits dated 2nd May, 2008 offering unconditional apology for all such actions/act stated to have been committed by them in the Contempt Petition. They have also withdrawn all the defences raised by them in the reply to the Contempt Petition. They have contended that they have already handed over possession of the disputed premises to the Court Receiver on 3.11.2007 and thus they have purged the contempt. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the possession was not given back by the respondents suo mottu but only after an order was passed 4 by the trial Court and the Court Receive had gone to the site and after making inventory, he had taken possession from the respondents and therefore the unconditional apology should not be accepted. 7. After perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 had committed breach of the order and thus committed contempt by breaking open the door of the flat and taking possession of the same. It appears that when the staff of the Court Receiver paid visit on 3.11.2007, the electrical wirings and wooden chair were found to have been removed and it appears that repairing work was in progress. Anyhow, the property was lying locked for about 25 years since it was taken possession by the Court Receiver. Now the possession has been taken back by the Court Receiver. In such circumstances and in view of the affidavits filed by the respondent on 2nd May, 2008, I find that the respondents have offered unconditional apology after withdrawing all the defences they had raised in the earlier reply. I do not see any reason to hold that the apology is not bonafide. Therefore, the apology is accepted. The learned Counsel for the respondents also offered to pay some costs which may go to the account of the Trust. In my considered opinion, this would meet the ends of justice. 5 8. The unconditional apology is accepted. The respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 shall deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- in total with the trial Court and that amount shall go to the account of the Trust. Contempt Petition stands disposed of. 9. The suits are pending since 1969 and inspite of the preliminary decree passed in 1990, the final decree has not yet been passed. Therefore, the trial Court shall expedite the proceedings and dispose of the suits by the end of December,2008. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)