THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.87 of 2011 ORDER: Obviously on account of lack of information as to the particulars of incumbents holding various positions, the petitioner had shown as many as five respondents in the contempt case and made endorsements to the effect that as many as four of them, except the third respondent, are not necessary parties. At a later point of time, the second respondent was sought to be treated as a necessary party. Even that request was acceded to. Now it emerges that the description of the third respondent is not proper. In this scenario, it is felt that the petitioner can file a fresh contempt with adequate particulars and taking up the steps which are inadequate. Hence the contempt case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file fresh contempt case against the concerned respondent. L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date.29.06.2011 Usd