Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. 1. The application for contempt now survives only against the respondent No. 8, who is a private respondent. The application as against the respondent No. 9 stands dismissed for non-service in terms of an earlier order of this Court. The respondents No. 3 to 7 have been deleted from the array of respondents in this application. There is no allegation of disobedience against the respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. It appears that on 14th March, 2002, a document was signed by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 8 whereby and whereunder it was indicated the petitioner will vacate the Math in question within 24 hours from 15th March, 2002. The petitioner filed a representation before the Trust Board in terms of an order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 10864 of 2001. This representation was made inasmuch as by a letter dated 13th June, 2001. A direction was given to hand over possession of the Math to respondent No. 6. While this representation was pending, the document dated 14th March, 2002 came into being. 3. The petitioner filed CWJC No. 4952/2002 contending that while his representation was pending before the Trust Board, the Chairman of the Trust Board had asked the Administration and the Police authority to dispossess the petitioner and to hand over possession of the Math to the representative of the Trust Board. The Court found, as a fact, that the representation made by the petitioner has not been disposes of by the Trust Board, and accordingly disposes of CWJC No. 4952/2002 with the direction that so long as the final order is not passed on the representation made by the petitioner, his possession shall not be disturbed. It does not appear from the order of the Court dated 18th April, 2002 passed in CWJC No. 4952/2002 as to whether the Court was made aware of the existence of the document dated 14th March, 2002. 4. The present contempt application has been filed for disobedience of the stay order of this Court dated 18th April, 2002 for it has been contended that in contumacious disregard of the stay order, the petitioner has been dispossessed. 5. 4. The present contempt application has been filed for disobedience of the stay order of this Court dated 18th April, 2002 for it has been contended that in contumacious disregard of the stay order, the petitioner has been dispossessed. 5. The respondent No. 8 is contending that in terms of the said document dated 14th March, 2002, the petitioner had already given possession of the Math before the order dated 18th April, 2002 was passed, but the said fact was not brought on record before the order dated 18th April, 2002 was passed and accordingly the respondent No. 8 has moved this Court seeking review of its order dated 18th April, 2002 which is still pending. 6. It, therefore, appears to me that whether the petitioner was or was not in possession of the Math on 18th April, 2002 is required to be ascertained in order to find out whether the respondent No. 8 has acted in breach of the order of this Court dated 18th April, 2002. The petitioner is contending that the document dated 14th March, 2002 was the subject matter of challenge in CWJC No. 4952 of 2002 but the fact remains that the Court did not utter a single word in relation to the said document while passing the order dated 18th April, 2002. 7. In a situation of this nature, sitting in the contempt jurisdiction it will not be appropriate on my part to decide that the petitioner did not honour his commitment contained in the document dated 14th March, 2002 and did not hand over possession before 18th April, 2002. I would, therefore, advice myself to give benefit of doubt to the respondent No. 8 and dismiss this application. The application is accordingly dismissed. No. order as to costs.