N.P.SINGH, J.

1. Three Advocates of this Court have filed this application alleging that a Judge of this Court has committed contempt of Court by making insulting and uncharitable remarks against an Advocate Dr. Sadanand Jha while hearing a civil revision application for admission.

2. The Civil Revision application had been listed before S.Ali Ahmed, J. a Judge of this Court (hereinafter to be referred to as the opposite party) for admission on 19-7-1985. According to the petitioners, after the lunchon interval when the opposite party took his beat Mr. Syed Imam Ali. Advocate mentioned to the Court that a caveat petition and an affidavit had been filed on behalf of opposite party No.3 of that case, and, as such, the petitioner of that civil revision application be directed to hand over a copy of the petition to the caveator so that a proper counter-affidavit may be filed. He also made a prayer for adjournment of the case for a week. On this the opposite party asked the counsel for the petitioner of that case as to whether he was agreeable to the suggestion made by Mr. Syed Imam Ali. Mr. Naseem Ahmad, who appeared for the petitioner of that application, replied that he will have no objection to the adjournment, provided the operation of the order under revision was stayed. Then Mr. Syed Imam Ali said that the opposite party No. 3 had already come in possession, and, as . such, staying the operation of the impugned order shall not be fair and only an order for maintaining status quo be passed. The counsel for the petitioner did not agree to this suggestion. On that the opposite party said that he shall pass the order when the case shall be called out in its normal turn. It has been stated that apart from Mr. Syed Imam Ali, Dr. Sadanand Jha, petitioners 1 and 2 had also been engaged on behalf of opposite party No. 3 aforesaid. When the case was called oul for admission Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh. Senior Advocate, addressed the Court on behalf of the petitioner of that application and gave the background under which the civil revision application had been filed. The opposite party then called upon Mr. Syed Imam Ali and asked him whether he wanted time in that very case which was replied in affirmative. The opposite party then observed that if he adjourned the case for a week then he shall stay the operation of the impugned order. Upon this Mr. Syed Imam Ali again requested that only an order for maintaining status quo be passed because opposite party No. 3 had already come in possession. The opposite party replied that he usually did not pass status quo orders as he himself did not know what was meant by status quo. On this Mr. Syed, Imam Ali prayed that the application itself be heard on merit because it was not maintainable. Thereafter, Mr. Balbadra Prasad Singh resumed his argument. What happened thereafter has been stated in paras 14 and 15 of the present application which are as follows :-

"14. After Mr. Balbhadra Pd. Singh finished his arguments, S. Ali Ahmed, J. started dictating the orders that Sri Syed Imam Ali put an appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, the petitioner should give a copy of the petition to him and the case be adjourned to the 30th of July, 1985 in the meantime the operation of appellate judgment shall remain stayed. Mr. Syed Imam Ali then stood up and said that the civil revision may be heard for admission matter on Tuesday or Monday itself, but the counsel for the petitioners, Sri Balbhadra Pd. Singh said that he will be at Ranchi in the coming week. At this stage Dr. Sadanand Jha, an advocate on behalf of the opposite party No.3 got up and prayed to the court that if stay of the operation of the order is in question, the civil revision application itself may be heard on merits for admission and it should be either admitted or dismissed. S. Ali Ahmad, J. remarked that an option had already been given to Mr. Syed Imam Ali as to whether he would like adjournment with stay or arguments on me