MAHENDRA BUILDERS Vs. PARVEZ GHANSWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings.

(2.) In my order dated March 29, 2006, statement made on behalf of the petitioner has been recorded to the effect that the petitioner was confining the present petition in the context of allegation of breach of injunction order passed by this Court constituting Civil Contempt. Accordingly, deliberations were confined only to the said matter. It is already made clear in the earlier order that the remedy with reference to the allegations constituting criminal contempt is left open. Those proceedings will be decided on its own merits in accordance with the law. So far as the present petition is concerned, the grievance is about breach of order dated 24th June, 1993. The relevant part of that order reads thus :

(3.) The petitioner has approached this Court on the allegation that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/original defendants have created third party interest in the suit property in spite of aforesaid injunction. According to the petitioner, this breach has been committed in the year 2000 but the petitioner became aware about the registered Assignment Deed only after taking search of the Register of the Registrar of Assurance. Here it may be mentioned that the case of the petitioner that he became aware of registered Assignment Deed is only vaguely stated in the memo but no material facts are provided even in the affidavit which has been filed before this Court. In other words, no jurisdictional facts are mentioned in the affidavit as to when the said search was taken and by whom and the source of information about existence of registered Assignment Deed came to the knowledge of the petitioner, such facts which were relevant to reckon the period of limitation. Be that as it may, in the petition as filed on 5th July, 2002, the petitioner asserts that the respondents have committed contempt which is continuing, contempt petition is within limitation.