JUDGMENT : Alpesh Y. Kogje, J. 1. This is a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contempt is alleged on the ground that the respondents have committed breach of the order passed by this Court in the proceedings of Appeal from Order No. 278 of 2004 with Civil Application No. 5996 of 2004, where in by order dated 10.08.2004 in Civil Application No. 5996 of 2004, the Court issued Rule and granted interim relief in terms of para-4 (B), which was to mean that the status quo was granted by an order dated 25.02.1992 to continue to operate till final disposal of the Appeal from Order. The subsequent order dated 17.03.2005 confirmed the interim relief pending Appeal from Order. It appears that Appeal from Order is still pending before this Court. 2. Considering the fact that the litigation which arises from a Civil Suit is almost a decade old and that the order, breach of which is alleged, is of 2004 and 2005 respectively, it would be necessary to go through the order sheet and upon going through the order sheet, it appears that earlier this Court by an order has appointed an Amicus Curie to assist the Court and after appointment of Amicus Curie, notice was issued by order dated 13.03.2013. 3. It appears that despite appointment of Amicus Curie and opportunity given to him by providing the case papers, it is observed that the party insisted to argue in person, which becomes apparent from order dated 08.02.2013. The Party-in-Person is also given an opportunity to inspect the records in accordance with the Rules. It will be useful to refer to and reproduce the order recorded on 05.09.2013:-- "It, prima facie, appears that earlier, for the same subject matter, Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 2930 of 2011 was filed under the Contempt of the Court Act which came to be dismissed on merit by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Akil Kureshi & C.L. Soni, JJ) on 30.4.2012. As such, for the same subject matter, 2nd contempt application would not be maintainable. Further, the party in person is unable to satisfy this Court as to whether the factum of passing the order on 30.4.2012 in M.C.A. No. 2930 of 2011 was disclosed before the Court or not. As such, for the same subject matter, 2nd contempt application would not be maintainable. Further, the party in person is unable to satisfy this Court as to whether the factum of passing the order on 30.4.2012 in M.C.A. No. 2930 of 2011 was disclosed before the Court or not. At this stage, the party in person seeks time and prays that the matter may be kept after Diwali vacation. Hence, at his request, S.O. to 27.11.2013." 3.1 Ultimately on 16.07.2014, yet another order is recorded, which needs to be reproduced hereunder:-- "We have considered the report of the Committee. However, the party in person states that earlier he has represented before the Court in the proceeding and he further states that he is not desirous to make any oral submission, but he is ready to put all submissions in writing. He has further given undertaking that he shall maintain the decorum of the Court and he shall not use any unacceptable language and un-parliamentary language. In view of the above, the party in person is permitted to make written submission. The party in person states that he shall tender the written submission within 2 weeks. As and when it is so tendered in the office, prior there to he shall serve copy of those written submissions upon all the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. The respondent concerned, if they are desirous to file any reply to the aforesaid written submission of the party in person, they may do so within 2 weeks thereafter. S.O. to 20.8.2014." 4. Even before this Bench, time and again adjournments were sought and were granted considering the representations made and to accommodate the party-in-person. The Court after having acceded to the requests made by the party-in-person on every adjournment, had recorded two successive orders out of exasperation on 25.07.2016 and 08.08.2016. The same are reproduced hereunder:-- "Order dated 25.07.2016 "The Party-in-person, seeks time. The respondents' counsels have strongly objected indicating that the matter has been time and again adjourned on account of the party-in-person's requests. The pendency of the matter is not going to help anyone and in fact this M.C.A. is hopelessly merit-less, as earlier M.C.A. on such a cause of action had been dismissed and the review is also been dismissed. We are of the view that as a last opportunity to the party-in-person, we are granting him time. The pendency of the matter is not going to help anyone and in fact this M.C.A. is hopelessly merit-less, as earlier M.C.A. on such a cause of action had been dismissed and the review is also been dismissed. We are of the view that as a last opportunity to the party-in-person, we are granting him time. At his request, matter is kept on 8th August 2016. The pendency of this M.C.A. shall not be construed as any impediment or embargo upon anyone, nor the same be considered as impetus working in favour of the petitioner, as unfortunately the petitioner has been seeking time for the reasons best known to him. The matter is adjourned to 8th August 2016 with a specific observation that the Court shall not grant any further time in this matter." Relevant portion of the order dated 08.08.2016 "Party-in-person appears to be interested for prolonging the matter. The Court, in fact, on 25.07.2016 had passed the following order:- Today, with great reluctance, he had to begin the matter and even after beginning the matter also he is unable to show the order dated 17.03.2005 from the compilation. We are of the considered view that such an attempt, which is only aimed at prolonging the matter for the reasons best known to him, cannot be permitted at the cost of forensic time of the Court, when the Court has 125 matters on board and in the beginning itself there was attempt to dodge the hearing as somehow or the other on some pretext the request for adjournment was repeatedly made. When the Court declined the request, the party-in-person started the matter, as it is stated hereinabove, he is unable to show even the order, contempt whereof is complained of. In that view of the matter, the Court has left with no option, but to dismiss the matter for want of prosecution. At this stage, the party-in-person has tendered two documents, one is in titled as written arguments of ordered dated 05.09.2013, which is dated 08.08.2016 and one more document in vernacular language inter-alia containing the allegations against the respondent No. 8. He also places on record the xerox copy of letter written to the Managing Director, G.S.F.C. Gandhinagar, and xerox copy of two decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court viz. He also places on record the xerox copy of letter written to the Managing Director, G.S.F.C. Gandhinagar, and xerox copy of two decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court viz. (i) In case of Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao and Another, reported in AIR 1990 SC 119 . (ii) In case of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. v. Electricity Mazdoor Sabha and Another, reported in 1989 (2) G.L.H. 256 . The party-in-person further submits that Court may decide accordingly. Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance upon earlier order dated 30.04.2012 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 2930 of 2011 in Appeal From Order No. 278 of 2004, and submitted that apart therefrom they have not to say anything more. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 submits that he will not fall under any definition of the Contempt of Courts Act so as to arraign him in this proceeding and he has been brought on record only on the ground that he has been purchaser of the property, which is alleged to have been sold in defiance of the Court's order. Hence, Court reserves order." 5. The development of this matter which is recorded in the orders passed by the previous Benches and the pleadings would indicate that what the petitioner desires to be examined by this Court is actually his contentions in the Appeal from Order. The pleadings which are in vernacular language would not support in any way the allegation of contempt by the respondents, who are State Financial Corporation and its officers. 6. The root of the litigation is a Civil Suit being 658 of 1992 filed in City Civil Court, Ahmedabad along with application Exh.5 for temporary injunction praying for injunction against the respondent Corporation and its officers not to act upon the notice published in the newspaper publishing schedule of properties for auction on account of defaulters. In the said notice of motion (Exh.5), initially, status quo order was passed in terms of para-10-A of Exh.5. Thereafter, it appears that the said application Exh.5 appears to have been decided against the petitioner, for which the petitioner appears to have approached this Court by filing Appeal from Order No. 278 of 2004. 7. In the said notice of motion (Exh.5), initially, status quo order was passed in terms of para-10-A of Exh.5. Thereafter, it appears that the said application Exh.5 appears to have been decided against the petitioner, for which the petitioner appears to have approached this Court by filing Appeal from Order No. 278 of 2004. 7. Therefore, from the facts recorded in previous orders, passed in different petitions pertaining to the same subject matter, it appears that the petitioner, who had availed of financial assistance for the purpose of business from the State Financial Corporation, had fallen in default, as a result of which the said State Financial Corporation resorted to action available under the relevant law, which was challenged initially by the petitioner by filing SCA No. 3028 of 1986. Pending such petition, pursuant to the powers of the State Financial Corporation, possession of the unit was taken and it is at that stage that Civil Suit came to be filed before the concerned Civil Court. Initially, in the said suit, as recorded earlier, interim relief was granted, which later on came to be vacated on 13.01.2004 and that appears to be the subject matter of the Appeal from Order. 8. In response to the notice, affidavits in reply are filed on behalf of the respondents, viz. State Financial Corporation, GIDC and private respondent No. 8. The reply mainly focuses on the point that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the petitioner had, for the same purpose, filed a contempt petition before this Court which was dismissed by giving elaborate reasons. Not only that, but when the present petitioner, after a lapse of substantial period, filed review application for reviewing the dismissal of his contempt petition, the same was also rejected. From the perusal of the pleadings and the documents produced on record, it appears that the petitioner has reiterated his grievance, which is akin to his main matters being Appeal from Order and the Civil Suit. It is pertinent to observe that the Appeal from Order is still pending before this Court and consequently, Civil Suit is also pending on the Board of the concerned Civil Court since more than 20 years. 9. We are at pains to see the conduct of the Party-in-Person, but would not make the same as part of this order as the same is already recorded in the previous orders. 9. We are at pains to see the conduct of the Party-in-Person, but would not make the same as part of this order as the same is already recorded in the previous orders. However, it is necessary to record and as is contended by the respondents and which appears to be true also, that the petitioner is deliberately keeping the contempt petition alive and is not proceeding ahead with the pending Civil Suit. 10. We have heard Party-in-Person, who has made submissions and has reiterated such submissions over and over again. However, this Court is unable to appreciate all such submissions which are identical to the one which were raised by the petitioner in MCA No. 2930 of 2011 and were rejected by reasoned order. It will not be out of place to refer to and reproduce relevant portion of the said CAV oral order dated 30.04.2012 rendered by this Court as under:-- "1. Party-in-person Pravinchandra Devchandbhai Luhar, proprietor of Bharti Fibers Tubes and Engineering Works, has moved this application complaining breach of the interim order of status quo granted in Civil Application No. 5996 of 2004 in Appeal from Order No. 278 of 2004, vide order dated 10.8.2004 by learned Single Judge of this Court which was confirmed till final disposal of the Appeal from Order and for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents. 4. We have heard party-in-person. He has also tendered written arguments and one handwritten affidavit. He has submitted that the action of selling his unit was not only in clear breach of the interim order of status quo granted by this Court but was clear and intentional collusive act of the officers of the Corporation to play fraud with him as also with Court. He has pointed out that the respondents, as also the officers of the Corporation, were very much aware about the interim order of status quo granted by this Court and still with clear intention to defy the interim order of this Court, his unit was openly offered for sale and ultimately sold away by making a show that the applicant was given enough opportunity and was made aware about putting his unit to sale. He has argued that the respondents and the other officers cannot pretend of any communication gap or misinterpretation of the interim order because not only there is a separate legal cell with the Corporation, but considering day-to-day function of the Corporation to deal with immovable properties in connection with grant of loan or other financial facilities to the unit holder, it is nothing but mere excuse. The applicant has tried to demonstrate before the Court that though as per the direction of the learned Single Judge, his case was required to be considered for One Time Settlement by deciding his representation, still he was never allowed to see even the face of General Manager and his all efforts were in vain to resolve his claim for One Time Settlement and he projected that it was intentional and calculated act on the part of the respondents to keep him away from considering his case for One Time Settlement and to see that his unit was any how sold away under the guise of not agreeing for One Time Settlement and/or not repaying the outstanding amount. He has stated that he was never sent any communication and the respondents have in fact, fabricated the story of sending communication to him before putting his unit to auction. He categorically stated that he never received any communication of asking him to remain present before the Tender Committee and the whole proceedings of selling his unit through auction was completed in his absence. Such was a deliberate act to flout the interim order of status quo granted by this Court and therefore, no leniency should be shown to respondents and other officers who have indulged into such defying act and have no regard or respect to the Court's order. He lastly submitted that this Court should take stern action against the respondents and other officers of the Corporation under the Contempt of Courts Act and punish the respondents and the officers of the Corporation to set an example. 5. As against the arguments, learned senior counsel Shri M.J. Thakor appearing with Shri Mitul K. Shelat for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that this applicant had no intention from the beginning to repay the loan advanced to him. He has been playing very clever tactics of delay to repay the legitimate amount of loan advanced to him by the Corporation. 1 to 4 submitted that this applicant had no intention from the beginning to repay the loan advanced to him. He has been playing very clever tactics of delay to repay the legitimate amount of loan advanced to him by the Corporation. He submitted that the applicant had misused the leniency shown to him not only by the Corporation but also by the Court. He has also pointed out that when the applicant filed the Special Civil Application in 1986, it was because of his fault of not showing any bona-fide intention to repay the loan amount, the Corporation was required to exercise the powers of taking possession of the unit and subsequently, the applicant had filed the civil suit before the Civil Court in 1992 and after obtaining the order of status quo, the applicant did not show any interest of settling the dispute of the Corporation and only intention on the part of the applicant was to delay repayment of the loan amount. Learned senior counsel further pointed out that after the learned Single Judge of this Court granted the interim order of status quo and by subsequent order directed the Corporation to consider the request/representation of the applicant for One Time Settlement, the officers of the Corporation made all good efforts to see that the applicant come forward with positive attitude and resolve the dispute under One Time Settlement. However, as usual, the applicant did not co-operate and it was not possible to resolve the dispute with the applicant. He submitted that after order dated 7.2.2005, when the settlement could not be arrived under One Time Settlement, the applicant, as usual, made allegations against the officers of the Corporation and therefore, the Joint Manager, Ankleshwar Branch of the Corporation had written to the Manager (Legal Recovery) on 2.3.2006 to draw the attention of the Hon'ble Court for necessary orders for the purpose of sale of the Unit of the applicant. This communication is found at page No. 92. Shri Thakor has drawn our attention to another communication dated 9.3.2006 (page No. 94) addressed by the Joint Manager (Legal Recovery) to the Joint Manager, Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Ankleshwar, stating that by order dated 7.2.2005 passed by the Hon'ble Court, the Corporation was to decide the request of the applicant. This communication is found at page No. 92. Shri Thakor has drawn our attention to another communication dated 9.3.2006 (page No. 94) addressed by the Joint Manager (Legal Recovery) to the Joint Manager, Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Ankleshwar, stating that by order dated 7.2.2005 passed by the Hon'ble Court, the Corporation was to decide the request of the applicant. Copy of the order was already sent and the matter was decided by the Court and therefore, no further representation was required to be made to the High Court. The matter was to be decided by the Regional Office and therefore, no action was required by the Joint Manager, Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Ankleshwar. Copy of the order of the High Court was also enclosed. Shri Thakor further submitted that these two officers, who are not the respondents, appeared to be carrying impression by reading order dated 7.2.2005 that, as per the said order, representation/request of the applicant was to be considered and since the matter was already decided by the Court, it was required not to make any representation before the High Court and therefore, no action was required at the hands of the Joint Manager, Gujarat State Financial Corporation, Ankleshwar. Shri Thakor has further submitted that act of putting the unit to sale on the basis of this understanding of the above-said two officers even if is to be seen as in breach of the interim order of status quo granted by the learned Single Judge, then also, the respondents were nowhere in picture in committing breach of the status quo order granted by this Court. The above-said two officers, who were responsible for taking further action of sale of the unit of the applicant, have not been arraigned in the application and the applicant has not deliberately joined these two officers. Shri Thakor has taken us to the advertisement and communication dated 12.7.2006, addressed to the applicant informing the applicant that public notice was issued in daily newspaper for sale of the unit of the applicant and tender committee meeting was fixed on 25.7.2006 and if the applicant was still interested to run his unit, the applicant should deposit the outstanding dues of the Corporation four days in advance through draft or cash, then the request of the applicant would be considered. Shri Thakor has stated that though the applicant claimed not to have received this communication but looking to endorsement of the Postal Department, it clearly appears that the applicant was deliberately evading the service of the communication, though the Postal Department had informed the applicant at his home to collect postal article within 7 days. Shri Thakor has further taken us to the communication dated 4.8.2006, whereby the applicant was informed about the acceptance of the bid of one of the bidders and was given an option to pay up the amount and get his unit released at the same price and conditions which were finalized in the auction. The Postal Department sent back the said communication with endorsement that the applicant was informed at his home but did not come to take delivery of the postal article. He has then drawn our attention to communication dated 1.9.2006 written to the successful bidder by respondent No. 1 and ultimately, the sale was entered in favour of the successful bidder. 6. Learned senior counsel Shri Thakor has also taken us through the affidavits filed by respondents. Respondent No. 1 is Managing Director of the Corporation, who has stated that when the property was auctioned in 2006 and sale deed was executed on 8.3.2007, he was neither Managing Director of Gujarat State Financial Corporation nor was having charge of Managing Director of Gujarat State Financial Corporation. He has stated that he was not involved in any such act in breach of the order passed by this Court. He stated that on the basis of the advice of the Legal Recovery, Regional Office has acted to proceeded further with the sale of the property and there was no willful disobedience of the order of the Court. Respondent No. 2 Dr. Jagdish Padmakant Joshi has stated in his reply affidavit that he had resigned from the Gujarat State Financial Corporation in January 2006 and was not in service of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation at the time when the contempt, as alleged, was committed. He has stated that the applicant was personally heard by him on the request for One Time Settlement scheme and thereafter, the Corporation has not extended one time settlement to the applicant. He has stated that the applicant was personally heard by him on the request for One Time Settlement scheme and thereafter, the Corporation has not extended one time settlement to the applicant. He stated that the settlement was not accepted by the applicant during his tenure but thereafter, he had left the service of the Corporation in January 2006 and therefore, he is not in a position to respond to any other allegations made in the application. Respondent No. 3 Shri Sanat J. Shah has stated in his reply affidavit that he was working as Regional Manager at Rajkot office of Gujarat State Financial Corporation from September 2000 to 5.1.2008. He was then posted as General Manager from 30.6.2008 to 31.1.2011 at Head Office of Gujarat State Financial Corporation at Gandhinagar. He further stated that he has retired and has been staying with his family at Baroda. He has also stated that he was not the member of respective Regional Tender Committee of Gujarat State Financial Corporation and he was not involved in sale of the asset in question and he has been wrongly joined as party in the application. Last affidavit is filed by on behalf of respondent No. 4 by one Lalit Naranbhai Parmar. He has given in detail the particulars right from 27.4.1979 as regards sanctioning of the loan to the applicant till the sale of the Unit in auction on 8.3.2007. He has stated in his affidavit that the applicant was informed on 16.3.2006 about the decision of the Corporation to proceed further with the sale of the assets of the Unit since the applicant had not acted upon the One Time Settlement offer made by the Corporation. He has also stated that the applicant was then informed about the tender committee meeting, sale of the unit and execution of the sale deed dated 8.3.2007. He has stated that the Corporation had acted bonafidely and it appears that the order granting status quo was not placed on file of the Joint Manager (Legal and Recovery) and on non-acceptance of the One Time Settlement by the applicant, Regional Office was informed to proceed with the sale of the asset. He stated that under such bona-fide belief, the assets were sold. He has ultimately stated that there was no willful breach of the order passed by the Court. 10. He stated that under such bona-fide belief, the assets were sold. He has ultimately stated that there was no willful breach of the order passed by the Court. 10. We are of the opinion that the explanations put forth by all the respondents in their affidavits go to show that the respondents have not committed any breach of the order passed by this Court. We are also of the opinion that this application is filed at a very belated stage. The applicant has remained silent for a period of more than three years in approaching the Court for initiating the contempt proceedings for the reasons best known to him. During the course of hearing, we had repeatedly asked the applicant whether the applicant would like to still join those two officers who are alleged to have acted in defiance of the interim order passed by this Court, the applicant has chosen not to join those two officers and has stuck to his stand to proceed against the respondents. We are of the opinion that no action under the Contempt of Courts Act can be initiated against the present respondents. We are otherwise also of the opinion that the application is also barred by principle of delay and laches and therefore also, we would not like to entertain such application to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents and to punish them especially when we have already been satisfied that the respondents have not committed any breach of the order passed by this Court. 11. Under the circumstances, this application is required to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss this contempt application. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith." 11. As stated earlier, Party-in-Person thereafter moved MCA (for review) No. 2548 of 2012 praying for review of the aforesaid CAV oral order dated 30.04.2012 in MCA No. 2930 of 2011 and in that attempt also, petitioner did not succeed, which resulted in rejection of the said application for review. 12. The petitioner has thereafter not been able to point out any subsequent development which gave rise to fresh cause of action in filing the present petition. The vernacular pleadings would indicate that the contentions raised in this petition also are similar to the contentions already examined by this Court in earlier contempt petition. 12. The petitioner has thereafter not been able to point out any subsequent development which gave rise to fresh cause of action in filing the present petition. The vernacular pleadings would indicate that the contentions raised in this petition also are similar to the contentions already examined by this Court in earlier contempt petition. In fact, in the present petition, the petitioner has even made demand for recovery of the amount from the State Financial Corporation along with interest. A perusal of the additional affidavits and written arguments leads to conclusion that the petitioner has submitted pages after pages which are repetitive in nature. 13. The Party-in-Person thereafter cited judgment of this Court in the matter of Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. v. Electricity Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. reported in 1989 (2) GLH, 256 in support of his argument that his contempt petition is not at belated stage and that substantial justice should not be denied to the party. In the judgment cited, this Court was examining in the LPA the order passed by the learned Single Judge condoning delay of 290 days in preferring First Appeal against the judgment and decree of City Civil Court in a suit and therefore, the Court was called upon to deal with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay, which by no stretch of imagination can be of any help to the petitioner in the present case. 14. Party-in-Person next cited decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao & Anr. reported in AIR 1990 SC 119 . This is a short judgment of the Apex Court, wherein the Apex Court has dealt with auction sale while following O-21 R-64 of the Civil Procedure Code. This judgment also cannot be of any help to the petitioner in the present petition. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that petitioner's contentions have already been dealt with by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to bring on the serious proceeding like contempt of Court in a casual manner and on the same facts and circumstances, which have already been dealt with. 16. 16. This Court would thereafter examine the claim of the petitioner even with regards to the question of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. For this purpose, gist of the prayer set out in the contempt application in vernacular language, which appear to be 16 in number, is required to be referred. The gist of the prayers is that despite the order of status quo to be maintained, the respondents have committed breach and have destroyed evidence and therefore, these scandalous officers should be immediately arrested and be inflicted with stringent, physical, financial and penalty sentences and also to get the matter investigated by CBI or CID. The record indicates that the respondent Financial Corporation in its meeting conducted on 25.07.2006, took a decision of carrying out the sale of the assets of the defaulter companies, which included the firm of the petitioner and issued public advertisement inviting offers. The offers this received were recorded and ultimately, under a registered sale deed dated 08.03.2007, the respondent Financial Corporation sold the assets of the firm of the petitioner to auction purchaser. Considering the aforesaid, contumacious action complained of by the petitioner, had concluded in the year 2007. In the facts of this case, this Court would not be able to expand limitation as prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act to include the alleged act in the fold of civil contempt. 17. This Court with a very conscious mind has refrained itself from entering into the merits of the case as well as conduct of the petitioner as the same would damage whatever chances the petitioner has in the pending proceedings. Otherwise, on the conduct of the petitioner, various Benches have made observations in their orders, which is part of the record of this case. The Court therefore has restrained itself from taking serious note of such conduct and inflicting costs. 18. In view of the aforementioned, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.