1. This is a Contempt Petition against one Shri S.K. Shrivastava, the then Civil Judge Class-2, laura, District Morena, on the ground that despite stay of proceedings of the trial Court vide order dated 20.8.200 1 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 701/2001, the learned Trial Judge decided the suit vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2003.

2. This Court vide order dated 7.1.2005 directed for issuance of notice to the respondent. Notice was made returnable within two weeks. On 4.3.2005, this Court observed that the service of notice was awaited. Office was directed to verify and list the case after the service report is received. On perusal of Part C it is revealed that Shri S.K.Shrivastava was in the meantime transferred to Bhopal as Civil Judge Class II under the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal. Accordingly, notice was issued to him through District and Sessions Judge Bhopal. There is no further document in the file to ensure that on what date Shri S.K. Shrivastava was served with notice and whether he was in fact served or not. However, this petition has been heard considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which boomeranged against the applicant himself.

3. It may be seen that the Contempt Petition has been filed by Arun Kumar, who happened to be the plaintff in Civil Suit No. 87 A/2001. He submitted Civil Revision No. 701/2001 against an interlocutory order dated 7.8.2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 87 A/2001. This Court directed on 20.8.2001 that until next date of listing, proceedings before trial Court shall remain stayed. It is stated at bar that Civil Revision No. 701/01 was not listed for hearing on or before 1.2.2003 and the order staying the proceedings of the trial Court continued to be operative till the date of judgment and decree i.e. 1.2.2003.

4. In the meantime, on dismissal of the plaintiff's appli0ation for temporary injunction by both the Courts below, Arun Kumar had filed Civil Revision No.501/2000, which was disposed of on 17.7.2002. It is revealed in this order that the revisionist himself made a prayer for expeditious disposal of the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months. This prayer was accepted and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of service of the order. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff/applicant while making a prayer before this Court for expeditious disposal on 17.7.2002 did not bring into notice of this Court the order dated 20.8.2001, whereby proceedings before the trial Court were stayed, though he was under as obligation to inform the same. Learned trial Judge pursuant to the order dated 17.7.2002 decided the suit on 1.2.2003 and dismissed it on merits. It seems that the plaintiff/applicant aggrieved by the dismissal has filed the Contempt Petition in order to pressurise the judicial officer, who obviously h:.3 acted in pursuance of this Court's direction dated 17.7.2002. The applicant/plaintiff cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold simultaneously. On 17.7.2002 he made a prayer before this Court for disposal of the civil suit within six months suppressing the factum of stay of proceedings in the trial Court vide order dated 20.8.2001. Now since the suit had been dismissed, it appears that the contempt petition has been filed by him on the ground that despite of stay of proceedings in the trial Court vide order dated 20.8.2001, the civil suit has been decided on merits. Perhaps, he would not have complained about it, had there been a decree in his favour. This shows the mischievous conduct on the part of the applicant/plaintiff.

5. Deliberate suppression about stay of trial Court's proceedings vide this Court's earlier order dt. 20.8.2001 passed in Civil Revision No. 701/2001 may itself amount to contempt of Court on the part of the applicant more so while making a prayer in Civil Revision No. 501/2000 to seek direction for expeditious disposal of the suit, pref