JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the contemnor-appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents. 2. The contemnor-appellant has mainly challenged the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (T. Amarnath Goud J.) in connection with Cont. Cas(C) No. 86 of 2022. 3. The relevant portion of the order under challenge is reproduced here-in-below: 'It is needless to observe that once Form-I is issued and served upon respondents, the contemnors are supposed to be present in the court. Since, they were not present today, this court is compelled to issue bailable warrant upon the respondent contemnors.' 4. Thereafter, the contemnor-appellant has filed an application before the learned Single Judge for dispensing his personal appearance. The Court after perusal of the petition and hearing the contemnor has passed an order on 27.09.2022, wherein the personal appearance was dispensed with. 5. In view of this, Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel for respondents in this appeal has submitted that the instant appeal has become infructuous. On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel has submitted that there is no Form-I in the Gauhati High Court Rules adopted by the High Court of Tripura. 6. We agree to the submission of the learned senior counsel that there is no such Form-I in the Gauhati High Court Rules. 7. However, without entering into the merit of the appeal and since personal appearance has already been dispensed with, the present appeal, according to us, has become infructuous. The contempt proceeding shall proceed in accordance with law before the learned Single Judge. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed.