JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J.—These three appeals are filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Petition (C) No. 67/94 on 21-7-1995 The first of the appeals is by Sunil Kumar who was the 3rd respondent in the main writ petition No. 645/94 in which an order was passed interlocutorily on a Misc. Petition i.e. C. M P. No. 1468/94 on 25-8-1994 which is said to have been violated by the appellants. The appellants in the other two appeals were not parties to the writ petition. They were impleaded only in the contempt proceedings as they were respectively the driver and conductor in the Bus owned by the appellant in Contempt Appeal No. 4/1995. 2. On 25-8-1994, this Court passed an order in C.M.P. No 1468/94 as follows : “Notice as above. Reply within the same time. Respondent No.3 is restrained from plying his Mini Bus No. HP-17 3285 or any other bus on the routes other than covered by Paonta-Rajban via Bangran-Kartarpur (18 Kms.)” 3. The respondent in these appeals who was the petitioner in the writ petition filed contempt petitioner (C) No 67/94 on 20-9-1994 alleging that the respondents therein had wilfully violated the order of this Court dated 23-8-1994. Alongwith the petition he filed certain documents including certain photographs to show that the bus of the appellant in appeal No. 4/95 was being plied in certain places contrary to the directions given by this Court on 25-8-1994. The appellants filed independent replies in the contempt proceedings. As regards the appellant in Contempt Appeal No 4/1995 he had stated that he had received an advance notice of the filing of the writ petition and he reached Shimla on 26-8 1994 with a view to contest the proceedings. He was informed by his lawyer that some stay order had been issued by the Court on the prior date but the exact language of the stay order could not be ascertained. He was under the impression that the challenge in the writ petition was only to the extension granted on 17-5-1994 which was a few months prior to the filing of the writ petition and not the extension granted on 29-7-1992 which had not been challenged for over two years. He was under the impression that the challenge in the writ petition was only to the extension granted on 17-5-1994 which was a few months prior to the filing of the writ petition and not the extension granted on 29-7-1992 which had not been challenged for over two years. The said appellant instructed his lawyer to prepare the reply even though he was not fully aware of the exact language of the interim order According to the appellant 27th of August was Saturday, and the Court was also closed on 28th and 29th of August on account of Sunday and Janamastmi respectively. On 30th of August, the said appellant could ascertain the exact language of the interim order passed on 25-8-1994. The reply drafted earlier was approved on the evening of 30th of August and the counsel filed the same in the Court on 31-8-1994 alongwith the supporting affidavit of the said appellant. The said appellant returned to Paonta Sahib on 31-8-1994 late in the night and immediately instructed his driver and conductor not to ply the bus. According to the reply the bus did not ply beyond the said route from that date onwards. It is also stated in the reply that no copy of the order was as such served on the said appellant or on his driver or conductor. The said appellant has also referred to the previous enmity between the writ petitioner and himself and some proceedings between them in the Court of Subsordinate Judge at Paonta Sahib. Further the said appellant had referred to the photographs and other documents filed by the writ petitioner and contested the genuineness of the same. 4. Similar replies have been filed by other appellants wherein it has been stated categorically that the bus did no go beyond the Bangran bridge from 1-9-1994 onwards 5. Learned single Judge however placed reliance on the documents filed alongwith the contempt petition as annexures and proceeded on the footing that the appellant in contempt Appeal No. 4/1995 having filed his reply on 27-8-1994 in Court would certainly have come to know about the stay order passed by the Court On that basis learned Judge rejected the version of the said appellant that he did not know the contents of the order as hardly satisfactory and proceeded to hold that he was guilty of contempt of the Court. With regard to other two appellants also, the learned Judge, though, did not say anything specifically, also punished them for contempt. Consequently, the learned Judge sentenced ail the three appellants to simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs 2,000 each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. 6. In these appeals it is quite apparent that the order passed by the learned single Judge is not based on any legal or acceptable evidence. The mere fact that certain documents have been annexed to the contempt petition, would not make them evidence in law. The burden was on the contempt petitioner to have proved those documents to establish the fact that the respondents therein had wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court. In the absence of any proof in support of the documents, the learned Judge was clearly in error in proceeding on the basis of such documents and holding that the respondents before him were guilty of contempt. We have already referred to the fact that some of the documents which pertained to the period after 31-8-1994 had been expressly disputed by the respondents before the learned Judge. In such a situation the learned Judge ought to have recorded evidence on both sides before coming to the conclusion that the respondents were guilty of contempt of Court. 7. The learned Judge has also not taken note of the fact that the respondents 2 and 3 before him were not parties to the main writ petition and there was no order as against them made by the Court The order directed 3rd respondent to the writ petition not to ply the bus on the extended routes. Hence, there was no justification whatever for punishing the respondents No.2 and 3 for having committed. contempt. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent contends that the documents not having been expressly disputed by the parties were rightly accepted by the learned Judge on record as evidence and it was for the appellants to have requested the court to give an opportunity to adduce the evidence .We are unable to accept this contention. We have already referred to the fact that the relevant documents have been disputed and their genuineness was in challenge. We have already referred to the fact that the relevant documents have been disputed and their genuineness was in challenge. The burden was certainly on the respondent herein to have adduced the evidence in support of his petition which was on the footing that the appellants were guilty of committing wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondent contends that if this Court thinks fit to set aside the order of the learned single Judge, the matter should be remanded for fresh disposal and both the parties may be given opportunity to adduce the evidence. We are unable to accept this request of the learned Counsel, for the following reasons : (a) We find that the main writ petition has already been disposed of on 21st of November, 1994. The alleged occurrence had taken place somewhere in September, 1994. The documents which were produced by the respondent herein alongwith the petition were very much in dispute. If the parties are allowed to let in evidence at this distance of time, there is a great possibility of perjury playing an important part in the proceedings in this Court. (b) Further, contempt is a matter for this Court to be taken note of. The respondent herein is only an informer if at all in the contempt proceedings. (c) It is not as if to keep up the majesty of this Court the petitioner has come forward with the petition for punishing the appellants for committing contempt. It is seen from the record that there was prior enmity between the parties and the respondent had already filed a suit in the subordinate Court at Paonta Sahib which was withdrawn after the filing of the writ petition In such a situation, we are of the opinion that it is wholly unnecessary to keep these proceedings in Contempt pending and allow the parties to lead adduce the evidence which would certainly be un-satisfactory at this distance of time. 10. Consequently, we allow the appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Petition (C) No. 67/94 dated 21-7-1995. The said contempt petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed. -