SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The invocation of this extraordinary jurisdiction is much abused in this Court and the present misconceived petition is only an example. An order was passed on December 24, 2010 in a pending suit directing the first defendant to make a deposit of the entire amount received from the public provident fund authorities on account of one Jitendra Nath Bose, deceased, together with any interest that may have accrued on the amount till the date of the order, with a nationalized bank. The order required the sum to be deposited within a period of a week from the date thereof.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the petitioners' several letters to the first defendant in the suit, there was no response initially on the quantum of interest accrued on the deposit for a substantial period. Subsequently, the first defendant informed the petitioners that a paltry amount had accrued by way of interest. The petitioners may have been rightly aggrieved at the first defendant's conduct. But however disagreeable the conduct of the first defendant may have been in such regard, it would not amount to a violation of the order dated December 24, 2010, far less a deliberate breach thereof.
(3.) In the absence of any deliberate and wilful disobedience of an order passed by Court, this jurisdiction cannot be invoked. It is only upon a petitioner perceiving that there has been a wilful or deliberate violation of an order passed by Court may a petition be filed for contempt. The misconduct on the part of a person against whom an order was passed may not, by itself, entitle another party to the proceedings to carry a petition for contempt.;