[1] DBC SPL. APPEAL 9/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (CONTEMPT) NO. 9/2009 IN S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 111/2009 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5234/2008 YADVENDRA SINGH Vs. MR. N.K. JAIN Date: 19.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. GANDHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr. Saransh Saini, Advocate for the appellant. **** (ORAL): This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 06.04.2009, whereby S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 111/2009, filed by the appellant/ petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by recording the following order:- “This contempt petition is arising out of the orders of this court for grant of opportunity to the respondents for filing reply. But no reply has been filed, therefore, as per submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is disobedience of the process of the order of this court. Learned counsel has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006 (2) Apex Court Judgments 472(SC)- Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang and anr. I have gone through the aforesaid submission. As regards the non-filing of the reply, the law is well settled that same would not amount to any disobedience and the court is free to draw the adverse inference. The aforesaid judgment is relating to the undertaking, therefore, same would not apply to this particular case. [2] DBC SPL. APPEAL 9/2009 Accordingly, I find no substance in the contempt petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.” The appellant filed a writ petition before the Court seeking regularisation of his services. The process of service started by issuance of notice on 27.05.2008 by the Court. The respondent- University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, appeared on 12.09.2008 and sought time to file reply on or before 16.10.2008. Reply was not filed and opportunity was sought to file reply on or before next date i.e. 12.11.2008. On this date also, reply was not filed and the Court granted last opportunity fixing the date for filing reply on or before 28.11.2008. The respondents filed reply. The respondents terminated the services of the appellant vide order dated 28.11.2008, but this fact was not mentioned in the reply. Learned counsel has submitted that since the process of the Court was going on, therefore, they have over reached the process of the Court and have committed the contempt of Court. In support of his plea, he has relied upon Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under:- “2(b). “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.” His submission is that other process of a Court includes process of service of the respondents [3] DBC SPL. APPEAL 9/2009 and, if reply is not filed as directed by the Court, it amounts to contempt of the Court. We are afraid that this plea can be accepted to that extent. If reply is not filed and it is taken as contempt of Court, in that event, contempt matters will be more than the main matters because every time the Advocates are seeking adjournment for filing reply. If his such plea is accepted, then even in cases where adjournment for filing reply is sought, the Court has to issue contempt notice also to the respondents. This logic is not sound and reasonable. If reply is not filed, adverse inference can be drawn, as observed by the learned Single Judge, but is not a case of contempt of the Court. We do not find any merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.S. CHAUDHARI),J. (R.C. GANDHI), J. /KKC/