M.B. Shah, C.J. P.S. Patankar, J. Anita Sohanlal Ghai others .... Appellants. Versus Snehalata wd/o Sohanlal Ghai alias Sohanlal Bansiram Kanwar and others .... Respondents. Show Cause Notice No. 332 of 1996 in Appeal No. 672 of 1995 in Notice of Motion No. 925 of 1989 in Suit No. 1055 of 1989, decided on 13/18-6-1996. Advocates appeared : A.S. Bobade, for contemnor. D.V. Merchant with Ashok Paranjape Ms. Tejal Singh i/b Wadia Gandhy Co., for respondents 1 to 3. S.H. Doctor with J.T. Desai i/b Kanga Co., for respondent No. 4. N.V. Gangal, Bar Council of Maharashtra Goa. JUDGMENT - M.B. SHAH, C.J.:---Notice of Motion No. 925 of 1989 in S.C. Suit No. 1055 of 1989 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by her order dated 25th April, 1995. Against that Judgment and Order in Notice of Motion, the appellants (original defendants 1, 2 and 5) have filed Appeal No. 672 of 1995. In the Judgment and order while setting out the controversy between the parties it is stated that the question as to who was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sohanlal was a matter of evidence which would require to be examined at the time of the trial of the suit. The Court further observed that the deceased Sohanlal has left behind valuable property and this valuable property is required to be preserved and protected for the administration of the estate of the deceased Sohanlal Ghai for the benefit of his heirs and thereafter the Court has passed a detailed interim order with regard to the preservation of the property. 2. Against that order, in the Appeal Memo various statements have been made which, prima facie, were objectionable and it was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the same were contemptuous for which appropriate action be taken before admitting the matter or granting any relief to the appellants. Subsequently, the learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out objectionable statements and tendered a list of such statements before this Court. 3. At the relevant time, the appellants were represented by the counsel and the learned counsel assured that a necessary affidavit will be filed for deleting the said objectionable statements made in the Appeal Memo. On that basis, on 10th October, 1995, the three appellants tendered an affidavit seeking leave of this Court to delete the objectionable grounds mentioned in the Appeal Memo. On that basis, on 10th October, 1995, the three appellants tendered an affidavit seeking leave of this Court to delete the objectionable grounds mentioned in the Appeal Memo. That affidavit specifically mentioned that the Memo of Appeal was drafted in the office of M/s. M.P. Vashi Associates and they have all throughout consulted Mr. M.P. Vashi and gave him instructions to draft the Memo of Appeal; they were lay persons not familiar with the legal language or were not aware of the consequences of the Appeal Memo as drafted in the manner in which it had been done. It was also mentioned that they unconditionally apologise the Court for any improper language that has been used by the Advocates. It was also specifically mentioned that they have recently changed the Advocates and they are advised by the present Advocates that some of the grounds are not in proper language and lower the dignity of this Court. Therefore, they have filed such affidavit for deleting and/or substituting the grounds as mentioned therein. An additional affidavit was also filed on the same date stating the same thing and for such other reliefs. 4. Before any final order deleting the grounds and accepting the apology of the appellants could be passed, it appears that the appellants changed the Advocates and sub-sequently on their behalf Mr. M.P. Vashi appeared. He tendered an affidavit on 22nd November, 1995 before this Court wherein he has stated that drafts of the Appeal Memo were dictated by him in the presence of the three appellants at his office at Andheri; drafts were read by them and after necessary corrections, fair Appeal Memos were prepared along with the Motion and Affidavit-in-support. He has stated in para 2 as under :--- "2. I may state that when I went through the two Judgment and orders, I was much shocked and surprised to read both the judgments. Some of the facts and observations of the judgments and finding which shook my conscience are as under :--- a) That the Notice of Motion i.e. 2830 of 1991 taken out by my clients defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5 was disposed by the Ld. Single Judge without giving reasons and without the Notice of Motion being heard. Some of the facts and observations of the judgments and finding which shook my conscience are as under :--- a) That the Notice of Motion i.e. 2830 of 1991 taken out by my clients defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5 was disposed by the Ld. Single Judge without giving reasons and without the Notice of Motion being heard. b) The previous Advocates who were appearing for them withdrew their appearance in the midst of the proceedings when the matter was part heard without giving any prior notice to the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5. c) When they made an application for adjournment on the ground that they required time to engage other Advocates the Application was refused by the Ld. Single Judge on the ground of their alleged conduct and the alleged embarrassment which was supposed to have been caused to the said Advocates. d) More shocking observation in the order was that the appearance was allowed to be withdrawn under the instructions of one "Mr. Sayed" - a total stranger to my clients. e) On account of these unusual facts, I came to a conclusion as a lawyer that the Judgment of the Ld. Single Judge was perverse. f) All grounds including ground (n) in the Memo of Appeal was drafted by me and the language used is mine. In my opinion there is nothing wrong in expressing strong words as long as it does not amount to Contempt of Court. I am of the opinion that the judgment can be criticised though the Judge cannot be." He has also stated that his clients are tendering a apology in affidavits expressing regrets to avoid unnecessary controversy and sidetracking of the main issue in the Appeals. 5. Subsequently, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, on 14th December, 1995, this Court issued notice to the appellants and their counsel Mr. M.P. Vashi which was made returnable on 15th January, 1996. 6. Thereafter, after hearing the counsel Mr. Vashi on 13th March, 1996, we have passed an order admitting the matter and the Rule was made returnable on 15th April, 1996. 7. On 15th April, 1996, the appellants have tendered their affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that even though they were educated, they were not knowing that the language used in the Appeal Memo amounts to Contempt of the Court. 7. On 15th April, 1996, the appellants have tendered their affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that even though they were educated, they were not knowing that the language used in the Appeal Memo amounts to Contempt of the Court. It is also mentioned "No doubt the language used in the Appeal Memo is strong, we felt looking to the injustice done to us and looking to the event that took place, we thought that our Advocate was justified in criticizing the Judgment". In the last para, it is stated that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the grounds in the Appeal Memo amounts to Contempt of Court, unconditional apology was tendered and may be accepted. 8. Learned Counsel, Mr. Vashi, has also tendered an affidavit on 23rd April, 1996 justifying the statement made in the grounds of Appeal Memo. He has stated that he was an active member of the Bar Council of Maharashtra for the last 20 years and the record will show that he endeavoured and made efforts to uphold the dignity of the courts, and made efforts to improve the administration of justice. He has stated that he has discharged his duty as an Advocate in drafting the Appeal Memo. It is his further say that "the facts and circumstances of the case required it to be drafted in a strong language". Thereafter he has made grievances that since 1987 the City Civil Court Bar Association is boycotting the courts on working Saturdays when the High Court is not working and also Sessions Work since 1993 during the October and May Vacations. Yet no action is being taken for contempt against the City Civil Court Bar Association. It is his say that he can point out a number of instances to show that as a practising Advocate and as an elected member of the Bar Council, he had remained in the forefront for reforms in the functioning of judiciary and the professionals. 9. From the aforesaid facts which are tendered on record, it is apparent that the appellants and their Counsel justify the grounds mentioned in the Appeal Memo. Therefore, it will be necessary for us to refer to the objectionable grounds in the Appeal Memo and the letter written to the Court Receiver for which we had issued notice to the appellants and to the learned Advocates. Therefore, it will be necessary for us to refer to the objectionable grounds in the Appeal Memo and the letter written to the Court Receiver for which we had issued notice to the appellants and to the learned Advocates. The grounds are as under :--- "(i) Ground (h) : It is alleged "not being satisfied with this injustice done to the appellants when the first appellant entered into the witness box to make submissions the Ld. Judge threw away the papers and did not allow her argue stating that only appellant No. 3/ Orgn. Deft. No. 5 should step in the witness box." (ii) Ground (n) : "It is an impression that even if totally perverse orders are passed by the Judges, they are not answerable. They are under a wrong impression that they have protection under the Judicial Officers Protection Act. The appellants are advised that totally perverse orders of the Court can be challenged as mala fide, and even action can be taken against the Judge also". (iii) Ground (al) : The order of the Ld. Judge is described as "a very strange order is passed". (iv) Ground (AA) : The reasons given by the Ld. Judge are described as totally absurd." (v) Ground (II) : It is alleged "This is an act of gross professional misconduct on the part of the Advocates and the Ld. Judge has also acted in an unreasonable and abnormal manner." (vi) Ground (m) : Where it is stated "it is very clear that even in the Receiver's Office manipulations were made to prepare a false report. This shows that when influential persons are involved, litigants, who cannot spend lavishly, cannot get justice." (vii) Ground (at) : In which it is alleged "The appellants have a strong reason to believe that the officers in the Court Receiver's office were also hand in glove in the big fraud played to dupe the appellants". (viii) Ground (au) : Where it is alleged "..... the Officers of the Court Receiver become parties to the fraud and collusion." 10. Considering the grounds stated above conjointly and in the background of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, particularly paragraph 9, we are of the view that the language used in the said ground is contemptuous, derogatory and to administer threat to the Court purposely. the Officers of the Court Receiver become parties to the fraud and collusion." 10. Considering the grounds stated above conjointly and in the background of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, particularly paragraph 9, we are of the view that the language used in the said ground is contemptuous, derogatory and to administer threat to the Court purposely. We do not find that it is a mere use of strong language as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants. Grounds which are irrelevant and unwarranted for the purpose of appeal memo are stated. It hardly requires to be stated that an Advocate owes a duty not only to his client but also towards the Court, of which he is an officer and, therefore, there are certain limitations which he must observe while drafting the contents of such pleadings. It was his duty to exclude all observations which were not called for. Not granting of an adjournment in a part-heard matter, that too in a Notice of Motion which was heard on roughly 10 occasions, would hardly be a ground for using the so-called 'strong language'. 11. Yesterday when the matter was called out, on behalf of Mr. Vashi, learned Counsel Mr. Bobade appeared and he submitted that his client Mr. Vashi tenders an affidavit apologising for all that had happened and that the language used in the Appeal Memo was not intentional. Apology may be accepted and matter be adjourned. 12. Today, when the matter is called out, learned Counsel for the contemnor and the appellants have tendered an unconditional apology and submitted that it may be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. In these circumstances, we are not discussing various contentions which are raised at the time of hearing of this matter. 14. Mr. Doctor, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, vehemently submitted that the apology tendered may not be accepted by the Court because the Court had issued Show Cause Notice to the learned Counsel for the appellants and yet he has not filed any reply but invited Rule Nisi and that the tendering of apology is an afterthought. 15. Considering the facts of this case and also the age and practice of the contemner, in our view it would not be necessary to impose any punishment because wisdom has prevailed upon him at this stage. 15. Considering the facts of this case and also the age and practice of the contemner, in our view it would not be necessary to impose any punishment because wisdom has prevailed upon him at this stage. We further considered that the apology tendered by Mr. Vashi seems to be bona fide. Contempt proceedings are not initiated merely because a particular Judge feels so; they are taken because it is essential in public interest and the confidence which is reposed in the Judge is not shaken by their being subjected to abuse and unwarranted attack. Hence we accept the apology tendered on behalf of the appellants and also Mr. Vashi. 16. For the reasons stated above, rule is discharged. 17. Learned Counsel for Mr. Vashi states that the offending grounds of appeal would be deleted for which an affidavit has already been filed in this Court.