Manjula Chellur, J.

These two contempt proceedings are initiated contending that these is failure on the part of the respondent-contemnors to comply with the orders dt.14.6.2004 and subsequent order dt.3.8.2004 in W.P.Nos. 22238/04 and 22239/04.

2. After initiation of contempt proceedings, notice was ordered to the respondents. Subsequently, in reply, the respondents appeared and filed their objection statements. Later on, this Court after hearing both the parties opined that there was prima facie material indicating disobedience of the orders passed by this Court dt.14.6.04 and 3.8.04, therefore charges have to be famed. Accordingly, charges were framed and evidence was also let in. when the matter was posted for hearing the arguments, the respondents took objection to the representation by the Counsel for the complainant Mr. Aditya Sondhi on the ground that Rule 11 of The High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) do not provide for Advocate of choice of complainant to appear and conduct the proceedings against the accused. In view of the above objection, an occasion arose for this Court to have an in depth co