Heard.

2. It appears that the opposite parties in compliance of the order dated 8.8.2013 passed by this Court has submitted four cheques bearing Nos. 282558, 282557, 290001 and 290003 dated 3.09.2013 drawn on the State Bank of India in favour of petitioner. The petitioner who appears in person has received all these four cheques along with a copy of the supplementary affidavit in which details of the calculation of the amounts paid to the petitioner have been mentioned.

3. I feel it necessary to observe that the petitioner was plaintiff in Title Suit No. 102 of 1990 which was decreed in his favour. Litigation between the parties went up to the Supreme Court and lastly, judgment dated 15.2.2002 passed by the Munsif 2nd, Dhanbad in connection with Title Suit No. 102 of 1990 reached to its finality. The decree holder/petitioner has also filed Execution Case no. 02 of 2012 in the court of Munsif 2nd, Dhanbad; when judgment and decree were not complied with and the petitioner did not receive the fruits of the suit, during pendency of the execution case, present contempt case has been initiated on the basis of the petition filed by the petitioner, but it is no where indicated in the entire petition as to which order of this Court has been violated.

4. Admittedly, no order of this Court was violated for which this contempt proceeding has been initiated. Contention of the petitioner is that since there was delay in payment, he has filed this contempt petition for initiating a contempt proceeding. It is also necessary to bring on record that no prayer by any of the court below has been made to this Court for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties. Therefore, I do not find any material on record which would suggest this Court to proceed further with this contempt proceeding.

5. Since the decree holder/petitioner was appearing in person before the learned court below, this Court has taken a lenient view on humanitarian ground to give some relief to the petitioner and therefore, directed the opposite parties to pay the admitted retiral dues to the petitioner within four weeks after making calculation.

6. Considering said order, the opposite parties have submitted aforementioned four cheques for total sum of Rs. 17,19,465/- (rupees seventeen lakhs, nineteen thousand, four hundred and sixty five only) and these cheques have been received by the petitioner in court today.

7. It is further made clear that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the amount paid to him by the opposite parties as per the judgment pronounced by the learned Munsif in the title suit followed by the decree, the decree holder/petitioner may raise all these issues before the executing court. The petitioner has also raised a question that the rent for the quarters under his occupation has also been deducted from the amount paid to him. The opposite parties have also lodged a Money Suit No. 04 of 2012 in the court of learned Sub judge for realisation of the rent from the petitioner. It is also made clear that the dispute(s) prevailing between the parties and issues involved may be addressed in the money suit which has been filed for realisation of the rent from the petitioner.

8. With the above observations and direction, this contempt proceeding stands dispose of.