1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.141/2007. Ramesh Chandra Ardawatiya. VERSUS Shri Anil Panjwani. 10.04.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.J.K.Singhi, for the appellant. Mr.Anil Panjwani, respondent in person. ***** This revision petition was heard on 26.03.2008. After hearing the parties, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to consult the petitioner whether the petitioner was willing to submit an unconditional apology before this court. Today the petitioner Ramesh Chandra Ardawatiya son of Shri Pushkar Lal is present in person and has been identified by Shri Singhi, counsel for the petitioner and has submitted an apology in writing. The same has been registered at Inward No.10619 dated 10.04.2008 with the Registry. The same may be kept on record. In view of the above apology which has been submitted unconditionally before this 2 court and in the light of the facts which have come on record including that the petitioner handed over the possession of the plot in dispute to the respondent-plaintiff and over which the respondent has also constructed the dwelling unit and the fact that the petitioner has genuinely tendered this unconditional apology as mentioned in written apology as well as before this court in person, I am inclined to accept the same and set aside the impugned orders dated 05.04.2007 and the appellate order dated 25.08.2007. The petitioner Ramesh Chandra Ardawatiya being present in person has also submitted that he has no further dispute in the matter with the respondent and is willing to end all the disputes including withdrawal of the Suit No.73/2003 which is pending before the court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and which is fixed for 28.04.2008, wherein he would submit an application for withdrawal of the same. The respondent, who is present in person, in view of the statement having been made by the petitioner and the written apology which has been submitted by the petitioner, does not press for the contempt petition which 3 essentially is a matter between the court and the contemnor. In view of the above, I am inclined to accept the said apology and the statement made by the petitioner Ramesh Chandra Ardawatiya. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders finding the petitioner guilty of the contempt as well as convicting and sentencing the petitioner for three months Civil Imprisonment are set aside. The revision petition accordingly stands disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.