The CBI on Friday approached a Delhi court seeking revision of its order directing the agency to withdraw a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the chair of Amnesty International India Board Aakar Patel even as the activist filed a contempt plea against the agency, claiming that he was not allowed to leave the country once again despite the court's order.

The agency filed the plea before the Rouse Avenue court's registry, a counsel for the accused said.

Patel, on his part, filed a contempt petition before the court against the investigating officer of the case of alleged violation of the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act for non compliance of the court's order passed on Thursday.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Pawan Kumar on Thursday passed the order and directed the probe agency to withdraw the LOC immediately, apologies to him and file a compliance report by April 30.

Patel's counsel claimed that he was stopped again on Thursday night at an airport and was informed that the CBI had not withdrawn the LOC.

Both the applications are likely to come up for hearing later in the day.

The court had noted that apart from the monetary loss, the applicant had suffered mental harassment as he was not allowed to undertake his visit on the scheduled time.

The applicant can approach the court or other forum for the monetary compensation. This court is of the considered opinion that in this case, a written apology from the head of the CBI ie. Director, CBI acknowledging the lapse on the part of his subordinate, to the applicant would go a long way in not only healing the wounds of the applicant but also upholding the trust and confidence of the public in the premier institution, the judge had said.

Patel's application had further sought the court's permission to visit the US to take up his foreign assignment and lecture series organised by various universities till May 30.

It had submitted that Patel was stopped by immigration authorities at the Bangalore International Airport on Wednesday while he was boarding a flight to the US.

The application claimed that the action was taken despite an order by a Gujarat court granting him permission to travel abroad.