ORDER R.A. Misra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This application has been moved with the prayer that the order dated 18-9-1984 refusing to exercise jurisdiction for punishing the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act be set aside and the contempt petition be heard afresh on merits. 3. It so appears that the applicant moved a petition under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act with the prayer that the respondents be punished for having committed civil contempt. Notices were issued against the respondents. The matter was listed for hearing on 18th Sept. 1984. No one appeared on behalf of the petitioners when the case was taken up after the revision of the list. The court therefore proceeded to decide the petition on merits and after perusing the record and hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, the court refused to exercise jurisdiction for punishing the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that he is mainly aggrieved by the first line of the order which says that no one is appearing for the petitioner. He informs that this portion in the order be expunged. The fact remains that when the case was taken up for hearing after revision of the list then no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and so the court proceeded to hear the respondent's counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner applicant says that he reached the court when the court was dictating the judgment and he was not aware of the fact that his absence had been dictated in the earlier part of the judgment so he did not disturb the court at that time by making a mention that his presence be noted. There is nothing on the record to show that the counsel appeared at subsequent stage and ordinarily if a counsel appears at a later stage and makes any such request then on his request his presence is noted and the order is passed after hearing them. In contempt petitions as laid down in R. 10, Chapter 35-E of the High Court Rules the informant has no right to appear or plead or argue before the court unless he is called upon by the court specifically to do so. In contempt petitions as laid down in R. 10, Chapter 35-E of the High Court Rules the informant has no right to appear or plead or argue before the court unless he is called upon by the court specifically to do so. In the instant case the petitioner and his counsel have been given ample opportunity to make their submissions but on the last date of hearing they failed to avail of the opportunity. It is not possible to set aside the order passed on a contempt petition on merits simply because the counsel representing the petitioner could not reach the court in time and could not make his submissions. As the order has been passed on merits and after giving full opportunity to the petitioner's counsel to make his submissions. I see no ground in the least to set aside the order passed on 18-9-84 and hear the petition afresh on merits. As regards the prayer of the learned counsel that the first line of the order wherein his absence is noted be deleted, I do not think it proper to do so at this stage. This would have been possible had any such request been made on the day when the order was passed and before it was signed. 4. In the result I see no substance in this application for setting aside the order passed by this Court on merits. The application is consequently dismissed.