1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- WRIT RESTORATION No. 99 of 2008 JAGJIWAN CHAND BHANDARI V/S N.K. PUROHIT Jagjiwan Chand Bhandari, the petitioner present in person. Date of Order : 16.2.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- The contempt petition was filed on 30.4.2008 with very many defects. Say about 10. The Registry gave time to remove the defects, defect no. 2 regarding production of certified copy of the order dt. 29.9.1982 of which contempt is alleged was not removed, and application was filed for dispensing with production of certified copy. On that application matter was listed in the Court on 7.7.2008, on which date the petitioner was granted one week's time for filing certified copy of the judgment, and it was made clear by the Division Bench that failing which the contempt petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for extension of the time, whereupon office prepared a note on 14.7.2008, and the matter was listed in the Court on 2 18.7.2008. On that day time granted vide order dt. 7.7.2008 was further extended for two weeks, maintaining the peremptory condition. It is despite this order that since certified copy had not been filed, vide order dt. 4.9.2008 it was clarified, that per force the order dt. 18.7.2008, the contempt petition automatically stands dismissed. It is now contended that the petitioner has already filed the certified copy. However, a look at the restoration application shows, that he applied for the certified copy on 25.7.2008, and from perusal of the copy it transpires, that it was received by him on 16.10.2008. This clearly shows, that till passing of the order dt. 7.7.2008 and 18.7.2008 the petitioner had not even applied for certified copy. In such circumstances, if for any reason the petitioner could not, or did not, receive the certified copy, then the time granted twice by the Court i.e. once granted, and the other time extended exhausted and per-emptory condition came into effect. In view of the above, in our opinion, no ground is made out for restoring the contempt petition. It is a different story, that the contempt is sought to be spelt out of a judgment rendered by this Court way back on 29.9.1982, and as per averments of the contempt petition the matter attained finality upto the Apex Court 3 also way back on 10.5.1994, while as noticed above, the contempt petition was filed on 30.4.2008. Thus, no sufficient ground is made out for restoring the contempt petition. The restoration application is, therefore, dismissed. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/