1 2025:CGHC:25622 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 832 of 2025 1 - Rahul Kumar Mishra S/o Tribhhuwan Prasad Mishra Aged About 32 Years Occupation Private Job, R/o Pragati Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Bada Ashok Nagar, Gudhiyari, The. And Dis. Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 2 - Tribhhuwan Prasad Mishra S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Mishra Aged About 58 Years Occupation Private Job, R/o Pragati Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Bada Ashok Nagar, Gudhiyari, The. And Dis. Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 3 - Smt. Vandana Mishra W/o Tribhhuwan Prasad Mishra Aged About 32 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Pragati Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Bada Ashok Nagar, Gudhiyari, The. And Dis. Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 4 - Sunil Kol S/o Shri Mohan Kol Aged About 26 Years Occupation Private Job, R/o Ward No. 10, Kolan Tola, Dalko Kothaar, 288, Papaundh, Sahdol, Dis. Sahdol (M.P.) 484774 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Nischal Pandey S/o Krishna Kumar Pandey Aged About 45 Years Presently Posted As Branch Manager Aavas Financers Limited Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Dr. Gaurav Singh Posted As District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Raman Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 19.06. 202 5 1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No.386 of 2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that material facts were suppressed by the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) and obtained the 2 order dated 20.01.2025 by which the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Bilaspur was directed to conclude the proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order dated 20.01.2025. He would further submit that since the writ petition itself suffered from suppression of material facts, the respondents are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, for which he has filed this present Contempt Petition. 3. The counsel for the petitioner would further submit that no notices were issued by the writ court to the present contempt petitioner and therefore he could not apprise suppression of material facts before the writ court. Therefore, notices may be issued to the respondents and they be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Present is a contempt petition filed on the ground that certain material facts were suppressed before the writ court by the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein). It is trite law that in a contempt jurisdiction the pleading and material produced by the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be looked into as it only confines willful disobedience of the order passed by the writ court. It is not the forum in which the pleadings of writ court is to be examined. From perusal of documents this court does not find any willful disobedience in the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 6. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder