COPC(T) No. 131 of 2008. 20.5.2013.Present: Mr. Roshan Lal Chauhan, in person. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents. CM)(T) No. 127 of 2012. Mr. D.P.Gupta and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocates are present. 2. We have heard Mr. Roshan Lal Chauhan, who claims to have authority to appear on behalf of the petitioner and also being husband of the petitioner. The application purports to recall the order dated 5th October, 2010 passed in Contempt Petition. In that order, the statement of the counsel for the petitioner has been recorded that he does not want to pursue the contempt petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that she had never instructed her Advocate to withdraw the Contempt Petition. In the light of this grievance, we thought it appropriate to give opportunity to the concerned Advocates who appeared for the petitioner in the contempt proceedings. Both of them have appeared before the Court. Mr. D.P. Gupta had filed ‘Vakalatnama’ for the petitioner, which clearly authorizes him to even withdraw the proceedings. The fact that specific instructions in that behalf were not given by the petitioner does not mean that the Advocate had no authority to withdraw the petition. The statement was made by Advocate Yudhvir Singh on instructions of Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate on record for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to recall the order dated 5th October, 2010. The party in person, however, has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in V.C. Rangadurai Versus D. Gopalan and others reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 281. In the fact situation of the present case, however, we are of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by recalling the order dated 5th October, 2010. We say so because the proceedings disposed of by that order was contempt petition. The petitioner who files such petition cannot claim as a matter of right to initiate contempt action against the opposite party. It is well established position that it is the prerogative of the Court to take notice of the grievance made in the petition and proceed against the opposite party. In that sense, it is not a substantive right of the party to institute contempt petition and much less to insist that the same must be taken to its logical end. In the circumstances, the application is dismissed. CMP(T) No. 128 of 2012 In view of the order passed in CMP(T) No. 127 of 2012, this application is disposed of. ( A.M.Khanwilkar ) Chief Justice. May 20, 2013, ( Kuldip Singh ) (karan/vs) Judge.