Judgment : Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. This appeal is admitted and notice has been served upon the learned counsel for the respondents, who appears to contest this matter. The scope of the appeal is very very limited, for which, no formal hearing of the appeal on a future date is required. Learned counsel for the appellant drawing our attention to the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application, namely, paragraph-4 of the affidavit submits that the allegations contained therein have no correlation with the order passed by the Hon’ble trial Judge. He submits drawing our attention to the order of the Hon’ble trial Judge that there has been no order restraining his client from entering into the land. The order relates to something else. He also submits drawing our attention to Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) that there is no prima facie allegation of commission of contempt going by the definition as above. According to him, the impugned order is a separate one and has got nothing to do with the first order in relation to which, the contempt application is said to have been made. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to give answer to the definition pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. She goes on saying some other subject, for which, her clients have grievance. She says that it will appear from the records that the appellant is not supposed to enter into or use the land for agricultural activities and as a result whereof, her clients have suffered loss and damages. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel, we examine the first order, which was passed by the Hon’ble trial Judge and it appears to us on a reading thereof, that Hon’ble trial Judge has not passed any order in relation to the possession of any property, but has passed an order directing the parties not to create third party interest and not to execute any document with regard to the suit schedule land. We, therefore, set out the relevant portion of the order. We, therefore, set out the relevant portion of the order. “In view of the facts and circumstances, both the parties are directed not to create any third party interests and shall not execute any documents with regard to the suit schedule land.” On a reading of the same, we examined the statements and averments made in the affidavit of the contempt case. Apart from the allegations made in paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, there is no other allegation. In paragraph-4, the 1st respondent-petitioner has alleged that “after obtaining the said orders, I made representations to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and asked to implement the orders of this Hon’ble Court. But till date not doing the same. In the meantime, the 4th respondent and his men had illegally trespassed into my property and also trying to stop me not to enter into my lands.” Firstly, we observe while agreeing with the argument of Mr.B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant that there has been no disclosure of prima facie commission of contempt as required under Section 2(b) of the Act. We reproduce the said provision herein below: “Civil Contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. In our view, unless there has been a prima facie statement and averment with the words “willful disobedience” there cannot be any prima facie case of contempt. Moreover, the Contempt of Courts (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Rules,1980 (for short ‘the Rules’) have also stated how a statement has to be made with regard to the contempt proceedings by a petitioner. Rule 7 of the Rules mandates as follows: “7. (1) Every petition under Rule 5(b) and (c) shall contain: (a) the name, description and place of residence of the petitioner or petitioners and of the person charged: (b) the nature and details of the contempt alleged, and such material facts, including the date or dates of commission of the alleged contempt, as may be necessary for the proper determination of the case; (c) the details of the petition previously made by the petitioner on the same facts, if any, and the result thereof. (2) Where the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his possession or power and refers to them in the petition in support thereof, he shall file such document or documents or true copies thereof duly authenticated along with the petition. (3) No Court-fee shall be payable on the petition or on any documents filed in the contempt proceedings.” It is clear from the said affidavit that there are no such particulars as required under the aforesaid Rules. Unless the statements and averments are made in complete compliance of Section 2(b) read with Rule 7 as above, there cannot be any prima facie disclosure of commission of contempt. More over, the allegations are made not in relation to the execution or non-execution of a document, on creation of a third party interest or execution of a document on the allegations made with regard to possession. The Hon’ble First Court while passing the order in respect of which contempt application has been filed, as we have already noted, has not ordered regarding possession. Therefore, the allegations are absolutely unrelated to the order passed earlier. The Hon’ble trial Judge, in our considered view, with great respect, has not checked up the aforesaid fatal lacuna and without looking into the same, His Lordship has been pleased to pass an order at the interlocutory stage, which again is a separate, different order. This was done because proper assistance was not rendered to His Lordship, otherwise, His Lordship would not have passed such an order. Be that as it may, a mistake is a mistake. Whether mindful or unmindful, a mistake cannot be allowed to remain. We therefore, hold that the learned trial Judge ought not to have entertained the contempt application. Unless those allegations are maintained, the Court cannot assume the jurisdiction. Therefore, the First Court lacks jurisdiction as jurisdictional fact was not mentioned. Therefore, the order is passed without any jurisdiction. The contempt application was also filed without having any foundation under the law. Accordingly, we set aside the order and dismiss the contempt case and the contempt case shall not be proceeded with. Learned counsel for the respondents argued unnecessarily, which is unrelated to the issue, and thereby wasted the Court’s time. Therefore, the order is passed without any jurisdiction. The contempt application was also filed without having any foundation under the law. Accordingly, we set aside the order and dismiss the contempt case and the contempt case shall not be proceeded with. Learned counsel for the respondents argued unnecessarily, which is unrelated to the issue, and thereby wasted the Court’s time. We, therefore, award costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to be paid by the respondents and because of filing of patently frivolous contempt application, the aforesaid costs is also necessary. Such costs shall be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Let this order be produced before the learned trial Judge on the adjourned date. It appears, in terms of the order of the Hon’ble trial Judge, since amount has been deposited before the Court below, the said amount shall be refunded forthwith by the Court below. The contempt appeal is accordingly allowed with costs as aforestated.