JUDGMENT : K.T. THOMAS, J. 1. Alleged contemnor is present. Mr. R. Karruppan, advocate practising in Madras High Court wanted to argue for Mr. S.K. Sundram. As no advocate-on-record has taken appearance for Mr. Sundram we asked Mr. Karruppan to explain to us about his entitlement to argue on behalf of Mr. Sundram without an advocate-on-record permitting him to do so. At present he was not in a position to explain anything about it to us. We then turned to the alleged contemnor. He filed a counter affidavit. It refers to certain annexure but those annexure have not been produced. He requested for time till tomorrow for producing those annexure and to address arguments. It is also open to Mr. Karruppan tomorrow either to convince us that he has a right to address arguments on behalf of the alleged contemnor without the junction of an advocate on record or to avail himself of the services of an advocate-on-record in the matter. The contempt matter will stand listed tomorrow i.e. 28.11.2000 at 2.00 p.m. 2. The alleged contemnor agrees that copies of the annexure which would be produced in support of his counter would be delivered to the office of the Solicitor General of India before 10.30 a.m. on 28.11.2000.