( 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 :"the defendants are hereby restrained from transferring and/or parting with the possession of the suit premises save and except permissible under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. "

( 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.

( 4 ) THE first question therefore, which arises for my consideration is whether the Contempt petition is within limitation. I have no hesitation in answering the same against the petitioner. This is so because, as is rightly pointed out by the respondents, the petitioner in the application-cum-affidavit filed before the Small Causes Court, Bombay in Interim Notice No. 5511 of 2000 disclosed in paragraph 10 and 11 of the affidavit that they had knowledge about the fact that the defendants have illegally inducted unauthorised persons in the disputed premises, thereby committed contempt of the Court. In this affidavit, it is also stated that petitioner reserves his right to pursue the remedy of contempt action for such breach. What is relevant to note is that this affidavit has been filed before the Small Causes Court on 13th December, 2000. This presupposes that the petitioner had knowledge about the breach committed by the defendants on or before that date. The petitioner was also conscious about the fact that he has to file contempt action against the defendants. But present petition has been filed only on 4th July, 2002, which is obviously after one year from the date of knowledge of the breach of injunction committed by the defendants.

( 5 ) TO get over this position, Mr. Godbole for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had no knowledge about the existence of Registered assignment Deed executed by the defendants in favour of the respondent No. 1 till they took search of the Register maintained by the Registrar of Assurance, as is mentioned earlier in the additional affidavit. This case has been made out for the first time before this Court and not in the original petition. Besides, no dates as to when, by whom search has been taken and other details are specified. In the course of argument, it was brought to my notice that petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document