JUDGMENT Heard Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. This contempt application has been filed arising out of testamentary case No.6 of 2013 and the allegations made by the applicant are in respect of certain documents that were filed by the opposite party in the said testamentary Suit which is admittedly still pending before this Court. The evidence filed therein has not yet been finally adjudicated upon. 3. The contention of Sri Rahul Agrawal is that a perusal of such documents make it apparently clear that they are forged and consequently after obtaining permission of the learned Advocate General, this Contempt Application has been filed. 4. Having perused the same and having perused the the entire record, we find that since the Testamentary Proceedings are still pending before this Court, the documents which are alleged to be forged and the contents whereof are relied upon by the opposite party before the testamentary Judge have not been allegedly denied by the opposite party, in such a situation it cannot be conclusively construed that the documents are admittedly forged. At this stage, it cannot be said finally that a case of criminal contempt is made out. 5. We also find that once the testamentary case is still pending before this Court, it will amount to usurping jurisdiction of those proceedings and initiate contempt of court at this stage when the said documents on the strength whereof allegations have been made are still to be adjudicated whether they are forged or genuine. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this criminal contempt application at this stage. The application is, accordingly, rejected.