-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1603 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3852 OF 2000. Kiran Prakash Malhotra. ..Plaintiff. Versus Aditya Construction & Ors. ..Defendants. Mr. Kevic Setalwad i/b M/s. Mehta & Girdharlal for the plaintiff. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General a/w Mr. P. C. Mody & Dr. Biren Saraf i/b M/s. Bhandary & Bhandary for the defendant nos. 1 to 3. Mr. H. C. Pimpale for the defendant nos. 4 to 6. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : January 13, 2010. P. C. : 1. This notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiff for taking contempt action against the defendant nos. 1 to 3 for breach and violation of the orders dated 5th October 2000 and 9th January 2002 passed in Notice of Motion No. 2750 of 2000. 2. By order dated 5th October 2000, ad-interim relief was granted in favour of the plaintiff in terms of prayer clauses [a(ii)] and [b(i)]. By the subsequent order dated 9th February 2002 ad-interim order granted earlier was confirmed. 3. Prayer clause [a(ii)] of the Notice of Motion No. 2750 of 2000, reads as follows : -: 2 :- “(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, defendant nos. 1 to 3 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from : (ii) carrying on any further construction or development on plot A; Prayer clause [b(i)] of the said notice of motion reads thus : “(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendant nos. 4 to 6 be : (i) restrained from issuing a completion or occupation certificate in respect of the building on Plot A as long as the construction exceeds FSI of 1,000 sq. yards. ; 4. In the present notice of motion we are concerned with the alleged breach of the order passed in terms of prayer clause [a(ii)] in Notice of Motion No. 2750 of 2000. Learned counsel for the defendant nos. 1 to 3 states that subsequent to the order passed on 5th October 2000, they have not carried out any construction of whatsoever nature on Plot A. He further submits that whatever construction is carried out, was done prior to the passing of said order, and therefore no case for contempt is made out by the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff could not point out that the defendant no.1 has carried out any construction on plot A subsequent to the order dated 5th October 2000. He, however, submits that the defendant nos. 1 to 3 have consumed FSI more than permitted under the consent decree dated 1st May 1982. 6. I find that the present notice of motion is restricted to the alleged -: 3 :- violation of the orders dated 5th October 2000 and 9th January 2002 passed in Notice of Motion No. 2750 of 2000 however the plaintiff could not show any violation or breach of these orders on the part of the defendant nos. 1 to 3. 7. So far as the alleged breach and violation of the undertaking given in the consent decree dated 1st May 1982 is concerned, the plaintiff can always file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate forums. In the light of the above observations, no case is made out by the plaintiff. Notice of motion is therefore dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)