MohitS. Shah, CJ.

1. Before indicating the prayers for which this Criminal Writ Petition is filed, it will be necessary to refer to the facts noted by this Court in Appeal (L) no.352 of 2014 and the orders passed by Mrs.Justice Roshan Dalvi.

2. The petitioner is an Advocate for Sanjay Punamiya, defendant no.1 in Suit no.175 of 2014. The suit is filed by the owner of a 7,000 sq. ft. flat at Marine Drive, Mumbai, alleging that defendant no.1 trespassed into the suit flat and fabricated documents to show that he is granted lease in the suit flat on a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- per month only.

3. The Plaintiff is the daughter of the owner of the building claiming title of the entire building of which the suit flat is one of the flats. The Plaintiff's case in the suit is that Sanjay Punamiya (Defendant no.1) trespassed upon the suit flat which was in possession and occupation of Mr.Faizal Essa Alyousuf Al-Essa (`Faizal'), who was the constituted attorney of Plaintiff's father. The said Faizal had kidney transplant in January 2013 in Mumbai and after recovering from the surgery, he left India for Kuwait on 6 May 2013 for rest. Defendant no.1 Sanjay Punamiya claims to have been inducted as a tenant into the suit flat on the fifth floor of a building on Marine Drive admeasuring about 7,000 sq.ft. from Faizal on the basis of alleged tenancy agreement dated 30 October 2012 for a rent of Rs.50,000/- per month.

4. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed Notice of Motion no.313 of 2014 for interim orders. The Notice of Motion was listed for hearing before the Court of Mrs. Justice Roshan Dalvi on 7 May 2014. Justice Dalvi passed an order dated 7 May 2014 granting ad-interim injunction against Sanjay Punamiya (defendant no.1) and defendant nos.2 and 3 not to sell, alienate, encumber or create any third party rights in the suit premises. Last two paras of the said order read as under:

“43. The acts of defendant No.1 and his Advocate Nilesh Ojha (who has yet not filed his Vakalatnama) detailed above is seen to be both scandalous and defamatory. It constitutes contempt in the face of the Court. This is a fit case where action for having committed criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act should be initiated against them. However, both defendant No.1 and Advocate Nilesh Ojha be first allowed to show course against the action in contempt.

44. Issue notice upon both defendant No.1, Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya and Advocate Nilesh Ojha to show cause, if any, why action under the Law of Contempt of Court should not be initiated against them.”

Justice Dalvi also noted in the order that Defendant no.1 (Sanjay Punamiya) was trying to avoid her Court as, in a similar case of trespass, she had passed an interim order for appointment of Court Receiver.

5. Order dated 7 May 2014 was passed by Smt.Justice Roshan Dalvi under section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act for issuing notice to Sanjay Punamiya and the petitioner, Adv. Nilesh C. Ojha, to show cause why proceedings for contempt in the face of the Court should not be initiated against them. On the basis thereof, the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court (respondent no.4), issued show cause notice no.787 of 2014 against Sanjay Punamiya and the petitioner on 22 May 2014. Further, after considering the affidavits of Sanjay Punamiya and the petitioner, Justice Roshan Dalvi passed order dated 23 June 2014 setting out the facts of the case as per the requirements of section 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. In view of the prayer of the petitioner to transfer the case to another Court, by the said order dated 23 June 2014, Justice Roshan Dalvi passed the order for placing the matter before the Chief Justice for passing directions as per section 14(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act for placing the matter before another Judge.

6. Sanjay Punamiya filed Appeal (L) no.352 of 2014 before the Division Bench of this Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 7 May 2014. On 9 July 2014, when S