Nilambar Mukherjee And ANR v. Champak Panja

D/L.10.

July 18, 2025.

MNS.

CPAN 386 of 2022 in WPA No. 9084 of 2021 Nilambar Mukherjee and another Vs.

Mr. Champak Panja Dr. Madhusudan Saha Ray ...for the alleged contemnor.

Re: CPAN 386 of 2022 (contempt).

1. None appears for the petitioners at the time of call.

2. It is found from the records that the petitioners have remain consistently unrepresented on the last three occasions, being May 23, 2025, June 13, 2025 and July 11, 2025, when the contempt application was called on for hearing.

3. As per previous direction of this Court, the learned Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor furnishes a receipt of a notice served on the learned Advocate of the petitioners. The endorsement of the said learned Advocate thereon shows that the

said learned Advocate has no instruction now to appear in the matter.

4. In any event, learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor submits that the order of this Court has been complied with by restoring the electricity connection of the petitioners.

5. Hence, it is evident that the petitioners have lost their interest in the contempt application.

6. The receipt filed today be kept on record.

7. In view of the above observations, CPAN 386 of 2022 is disposed of as infructuous.

8. There will be no order as to costs.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)