JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.-This proceeding in contempt was initiated by this Court suo motu, on a prima-facie finding that the respondents 2 and 3 were guilty of contempt not only by dealing with property which was custodia legis but also by disobeying orders of Court. At the conclusion of the arguments we are of the confirmed view that the prima facie conclusion arrived at by us was correct, and that the respondents 2 and 3 are liable to be punished for their contumacious conduct.

2. The respondent No. 2 describes herself as the "sole surviving partner" of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.3 is the husband and power of attorney holder of respondent No.2.

3. The litigation out of which this proceeding arises commenced in 1975 when the petitioner-bank filed a suit against respondent No.1 inter alia for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,14,817.91. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Sub Judge, Eluru in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent No.1 raised a counter claim against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 34,48,799. On 6th July 1976, the petitioner s claim was decreed only to the extent of a sum of Rs. 1,00,418.55. The counter claim of the respondent No.1 was however allowed