Oral Judgment: None for the Respondent. The Appeal is against Order dated 5 February 2005 whereby the Judge of the City Civil Court, held three officers of the Appellant/Corporation, guilty for breach of injunction order and thereby punished for one month civil imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.2500/- each. By the same order, permission was granted to the Plaintiff/Respondent to re-erect the structure if already demolished, though there is a statement made that the suit structure is “re-erected and reconstructed and the structure is in existence today”. The same position stands today. It is relevant to note that the basic Suit was filed in view of the issuance of notice under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. However, liberty was granted and after following the due procedure on 22 April 1998, the structure was demolished. The injunction was obtained by the Plaintiff on 5 January 1999 by suppressing the fact of demolition. The Plaintiff unable to produce the court papers at the time of basic action. The exact location of the structure was never placed on record. The Suit itself was for restrainment order against the Corporation from demolishing the suit structure. By subsequent averment, submission was made that the structures were demolished on 21 August 2000 again. 2. This Court admitted the matter on 29 August 2005. The said order also permitted the parties to settle the matter. The Appellants deposited the amount of Rs.2500/- each and the same is invested. None appears for the Respondent though the matter is listed from time to time. The demolition, even if any, of the portion of the premises, without due notice, in no way, can be stated to be in breach of order of the Court. The breach of principle of nature justice and the Corporation must follow the due procedure of law having different facets. The concerned person/aggrieved party may file Suit for compensation, but we are concerned at this stage with the finding that the officers of the Corporation have committed the contempt of court by not obeying the un-communicated order of the Court. There is no finding that the concerned person, who demolished the unauthorized construction/structure had personally received the notice, still they proceeded to demolish the structure. The communication gap from officer to officer just cannot be overlooked. There is no finding that the concerned person, who demolished the unauthorized construction/structure had personally received the notice, still they proceeded to demolish the structure. The communication gap from officer to officer just cannot be overlooked. However, this in no way means a green signal and/or permissible modes for offices of the Corporation to demolish the structure without due notice and/or inspite of preventive order from the Court. The Corporation and/or its officers are bound by the orders passed by; the Court. But the issue is the proper and correct communication of the order. Punishing only these officers in such fashion on the basis of finding that there was no proper notice given and/or they must follow the due procedure of law before eviction, in my view, is not what contemplated under Order 39, Rule 2(a) of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 3. The issue of notice under Section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 also just cannot be overlooked only on the finding that the Defendant's officers were not discharging the duties as per the law. To file Suit without due/statutory notice on a finding that the action was not in good faith that itself cannot be the reason to overlook the case of the Appellants with regard to the submissions revolving around the contempt action so initiated by the learned judge. The non-filing of immediate affidavit and/or reply by the officers concerned, with regard to the existence of the structure in question which, in my view, is also a matter which require reconsideration during the trial and cannot be the reason to punish the offices of the Corporation. Before punishing, it is necessary to consider the whole material and the documents on record including the action and conduct of the parties. Mere non-filing of affidavit immediately with regard to the structure in no way can be stated to be a reason to punish the officers as done in the present case. The law with regard to the “unauthorized structure” and the action which required to be taken by the Corporation and or its officers is very well reflected in various judgments and so also in the provisions of the Act. The procedure which ought to have and/or should be followed by the Corporation and/or its officers, therefore, need no further discussion. The law with regard to the “unauthorized structure” and the action which required to be taken by the Corporation and or its officers is very well reflected in various judgments and so also in the provisions of the Act. The procedure which ought to have and/or should be followed by the Corporation and/or its officers, therefore, need no further discussion. It is quite settled, but the issue still remains whether noncompliance of the statutory provisions, even if any, that itself amounts to contempt of Court as observed by the Court. As noted already, such illegal action, even if any, taken, the remedy is elsewhere. The parties always at liberty to take out the proceedings for compensation and/or damages if case is made out. In the present case, as noted above, the Court, while disposing of the contempt petition, has permitted the Plaintiff/Respondent to erect the structure if not already erected. This itself, in my view and as rightly done, sufficient to dispose of the matter so far as the issuance of contempt Notice No.462/2000 in question. The Suit as decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Corporation and as permission is already granted to re-erect the structure, in my view, needs no interference. However, this does not take away the Corporation's right to initiate eviction proceedings in accordance with law if case of unauthorized construction is made out. 4. So far as fine deposited by the Appellants in Court, it is directed to refund to the Appellant, as liberty is also granted to the Respondent/original Plaintiff to claim for damages and/or compensation in accordance with law. 5. Impugned order dated 5 February 2005 is modified accordingly. The Contempt Notice No.462/2000 is quashed and set aside by holding that the officers of the Respondent are not guilty for breach of injunction as observed. 6. The Appeal from order is accordingly partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs, with liberty.