Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 466 (ALL)

SATGURU SHARNANAND v. SHIV KAILASH PANDEY

2001-05-11

S.AMBWANI

body2001
S. AMBWANI, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant has filed this contempt petition against Sri Shiv Kallash Pandey, the Additional district Judge, Varanasi, alleging that he had heard the arguments in four revisions on 22nd september, 1989 and had fixed 26th September, 1989, for delivery of judgment, in all four cases. It is alleged that a transfer application was prepared on 25th September, 1989 and was presented in the office of the District Judge, Varanasi. Since the Courts closed half day due to reference on death of an Advocate, the said application was ordered to be put up on 26th September, 1989 as first case. On 26th September, 1989, the District Judge, Varanasi, stayed delivery of judgment and despite the communication of this order by the learned counsel for the applicant, the opposite party signed it. In paragraph 14 of the application, it has been alleged that the opposite party granted to the learned counsel for the applicant ten minutes time to bring the stay order, as the judgments had been signed by him, and that after the stay order was produced before him, he postponed the formal delivery of judgment and kept them in sealed covers. It is stated that subsequently the transfer application was allowed. It has been alleged that the judgments are duly written and signed only after formal reading and that the aforesaid acts committed by the judicial officer amount to contempt of a Court. ( 2 ) NOTICES were issued on 20. 10. 1989 and in reply the opposite party Sri Shiv Kailash Pandey, the then Xth Additional District Judge, Varanasi, has filed a counter-affidavit stating that he had heard the arguments on 21st September, 1989, which were concluded on 22nd September, 1989 and thereafter fixed 26th September, 1989 for delivery of judgments. On 23rd September, 1989, he was on leave. On 24th September, 1989, 3/4th order was dictated and the remaining part was dictated on 25th September, 1989 in Chambers simply because the lawyers were not working in the Court. He has denied that on 26th September. 1989, any counsel approached him in his chambers. The District Judge, Varanasi, had only stayed the delivery of judgment. In paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit, the opposite party has stated that the judgment or order is signed and dated in accordance with the provisions of Order XX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1989, any counsel approached him in his chambers. The District Judge, Varanasi, had only stayed the delivery of judgment. In paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit, the opposite party has stated that the judgment or order is signed and dated in accordance with the provisions of Order XX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the time of pronouncement, it is signed and dated and then pronounced in open Court and thereafter a certificate to that fact is also given on the face of the judgment. The judgment is read out only after signing it and thereafter the certificate stating that the judgment is signed, dated and pronounced in the open Court is given. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the district Judge has stayed the delivery of judgment, and that stay order was complied with and, therefore, there is absolutely no case of disobedience or flouting of order. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri B. N. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the applicant at a great length and sri Chandra Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. I have also perused the record of the case and the relevant provisions. ( 4 ) ORDER XX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open Court at the time of pronouncing it and, when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to. In the present case, it is not denied by the applicant that by the time the stay order was passed by the District Judge, the judgment had been signed. As soon as the opposite party came to know about the order staying the delivery of Judgment, he complied with the same. ( 5 ) IT is a matter of serious concern that after the arguments were heard and the judgment was dictated by the Judicial Officer, an attempt was made to transfer the case from his Court. It is not the case of the applicant that they had made any objection at the time of hearing or before 25th september, 1989. It appears that when the party acquired knowledge that the judgment might go against them an attempt was made to transfer of the cases from his Court. It is not the case of the applicant that they had made any objection at the time of hearing or before 25th september, 1989. It appears that when the party acquired knowledge that the judgment might go against them an attempt was made to transfer of the cases from his Court. Section 24 of Code of civil Procedure provides that on an application of any of the parties, and after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage - (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it to (i) try or dispose of the same or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try for disposal of the same or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Courts from which it was withdrawn. The words at any stage cannot be interpreted to mean the stage when the arguments have been heard and that when the judgment is dictated and the date has been fixed for delivery of judgment. After the arguments were heard, the Court may make up his mind and while considering the matter may put some uncomfortable queries to the parties, and after the judgment is reserved, the parties may reasonably anticipated and thereafter attempt to transfer the proceedings to other court. Hearing of arguments, decision making process and dictation of judgment takes valuable time of the Court. If the transfer applications are entertained and decided at the stage after hearing of arguments when the judgment is reserved and date is fixed for its delivery, it would not be in the interest of justice that the transfer petitions are entertained. In the present case in the transfer application dated 25. 9. 1989 the parties had clearly mentioned that in Revision No. 58 of 1989 the arguments have been heard and that the matter is fixed for 26. 9. 1989 for delivery of judgment. The District Judge had full knowledge that the judgment is to be delivered on 26. 9. 1989. In the present case in the transfer application dated 25. 9. 1989 the parties had clearly mentioned that in Revision No. 58 of 1989 the arguments have been heard and that the matter is fixed for 26. 9. 1989 for delivery of judgment. The District Judge had full knowledge that the judgment is to be delivered on 26. 9. 1989. There was a conflict of decisions in old Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, on the question whether a suit could be transferred or withdrawn once the hearing had commenced. Some High Courts were of the view that the suit could be transferred or withdrawn even after the hearing bad commenced and even under execution proceedings. But some other High Courts, had, however, taken a contrary view. The addition of the word at any stage, in the present Code of 1908 now make a position clear. It is only under exceptional cases that once the hearing begins, the application for transfer may be entertained even after the hearing had been concluded and the judgment has been reserved, it is not proper to entertain the transfer application. The fact, however, remains that as soon as the Presiding Officer was communicated with the order, he restrained himself from pronouncing the judgment and put them in sealed cover. I do not find that in the present case, the opposite party had in any manner committed any disobedience of contempt of his own Court. No case of contempt is made out and thus, the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) IT is not in the interest of administration of justice, that judicial officers be made parties to the contempt proceedings. In the present case, I find that once the applicant achieved their object in restraining him to deliver his judgment, there was no occasion to file this contempt petition. The applicant was wrongly advised that by signing the judgment, the judicial officer committed contempt of his own Court. There was no reason whatsoever to file this contempt petition. However, I find that in the petition the applicant had no where mentioned that only delivery of judgment was stayed. In paragraph 10 of the contempt petition, it has been stated that the District judge had stayed further proceedings in those cases. There was no reason whatsoever to file this contempt petition. However, I find that in the petition the applicant had no where mentioned that only delivery of judgment was stayed. In paragraph 10 of the contempt petition, it has been stated that the District judge had stayed further proceedings in those cases. This statement of fact may have misled the court in issuing notice and dragged the judicial officer to Court in which he was required to file affidavit, and has been a party of these proceedings for 11 years which may have effected his career. I put this question repeatedly to the counsel for the applicant as to why after the delivery of judgment was postponed, this contempt petition was filed. He was not able to give any satisfactory answer. It appears that this contempt petition was filed only to threaten and intimidate the judicial officer. If the parties to the litigation are permitted to file such contempt petitions, it would be difficult for judicial officers to carry out their work impartially. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. I find that the present contempt petition is abuse of process of Court in which the judicial officer was dragged unnecessarily and that the applicant must be penalised for this irresponsible, action and malacious prosecution of a judicial officer. In the circumstances. I impose cost of Rs. 10. 000 (Rupees Ten thousand only)upon the applicant Sri Satguru Sharnanand Chela of Late Swami Har Shankaranand, resident of math Garvaghat, Ramna Pargana-Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi. The Registrar will communicate this order to him and the costs shall be deposited by the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order with District Judge--Opposite party, to be credited in the account of District Legal Aid Committee, Varanasi. In case this cost is not deposited the District Judge, Varanasi, shall issue a recovery certificate to the Collector. Varanasi, who shall recover it as arrears of Land Revenue and inform the District Judge, varanasi, with the recovery and deposit as expeditiously as possible. ( 7 ) THE contempt petition is dismissed with the aforesaid direction. .