JUDGMENT Admittedly the order which is sought to be made basis for initiating the contempt proceedings i.e. an order dated 9.8.2000 passed in W.P. No. 1750/99 is the subject matter of LPA which is still pending. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner was that since the LPA filed by respondents i.e. the contemners is hopelessly barred by time for more than 300 days and that LPA attempts were being made by some of the respondents of this contempt and who were appellants before the appellate Court to obtain orders by suppressing the facts. It is on this basis the learned counsel for petitioners has contended that action for initiating contempt against the respondent be taken for non-implementation of the order dated 9.8.2000 passed in W.P. No. 1750/99. In my opinion, once the issue in regard to committing contempt of the impugned order is sub-judice in appeal, then it can certainly be considered and taken note of no sooner the LPA is decided one way or the other by the Division Bench. There is no limitation for initiating any contempt proceeding against the contemners in contempt jurisdiction which is never regarded as adversary litigation between the parties to the lis. When the matter is sub-judice before the appellate Court in LP A at the instance of some of the respondents, this Court would not like to apply its mind to the issue involved in contempt application and would like to await the orders to be ultimately passed by the Division Bench in the pending LPA. I, therefore, decline to entertain contempt petition at this stage and while dismissing it grant liberty to the petitioners to renew their contempt application no sooner the appeal is decided on its own merits in accordance with law, if the occasion so arises. C.C. within a week.