( 1 ) IN this application, the respondent has prayed that the judgment debtor appellant Uma Datt be called up to show cause why be should not be prosecuted in trying to mislead this Court by concealment of material facts in his application Civil Misc No. 195 of 1967 dated l1th January, 1967. The application is ingenious and indeed it obviously has been inspired by a desire to put pressure on the opposite party. In the heading of the application, it is stated to have been filed under section 151, Civil Procedure Code and under sections 193, Indian Penal Code and 476, Criminal Procedure Code, but is obvious that the application (C. Misc. 196 of 1967) was neither verified by Uma Datt, nor is there any affidavit which has been suggested to be the basis for the prosecution for whch the respondent wants to canvass. During the course of arguments, however the learned counsel for the respondent has only tried to make out a case for initiating proceedings for contempt of Court.

( 2 ) CONTEMPT of Court, it must never be forgotten, is a summary and a drastic process which this Court is very slow to resort to, except in cases of gross affront to the dignity of the Court or in cases wh