J. M. MALIK, J. ( 1 ) IT is well known that money is the biggest seed of strife in this world and man's avarice for wealth leads him to commit criminal acts. It is equally well known that the truth has the annoying habit of not staying suppressed for too long. Every volition of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but it is also a stab at the health of human society. Two criminal contempt matters against contemnors kuldeep Kumar and Ashok Kumar vide order dated 16. 01. 2006 and Girdhari Lal vide order dated 09. 03. 2006 passed by the learned single Judge of this High Court were assigned to this Division Bench. ( 2 ) THE facts adumbrated in brief are these. Kuldeep Kapoor, plaintiff filed suit before this court for recovery of damages to the tune of Rupees Twenty One lacs against the defendant on 27. 05. 2005. According to the plaintiff/contemnor, he and Susanta Sen gupta, defendant, entered into an agreement, wherein plaintiff agreed to purchase the entire second floor and the terrace thereon of property bearing no. D-632 Chitranjan Park, new Delhi for a total sum of Rupees Ten lacs. The defendant received part payment in the sum of Rupees Four lacs from the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant also received a sum of Rupees Two lacs and issued a receipt dated 20. 10. 2004. The sale deed was to be executed after the property in question was to be converted into free hold from lease hold. Needful was not done. Ultimately, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 15. 03. 2005 but the defendant did not respond. During one of the visits, the plaintiff noticed that the defendant had got the premises demolished. The plaintiff was convinced that he was cheated by the defendant. The plaintiff thus rescinded the contract vide notice dated 04. 05. 2005. He called upon the defendant to refund Rupees Six lacs and pay damages in the sum of Rupees Fifteen lacs because there was a hike in the property prices. The plaintiff also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rupees Six lacs. The fear of the plaintiff stood established vide defendant's letter dated 19. 05. 2005, wherein the defendant described the amount as "loan" simpliciter. The plaintiff also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rupees Six lacs. The fear of the plaintiff stood established vide defendant's letter dated 19. 05. 2005, wherein the defendant described the amount as "loan" simpliciter. The plaintiff apprehended that the defendant would transfer the property by way of sale to any third party and as such an application for temporary injunction was also filed along with suit, which was granted vide order dated 31. 05. 2005. ( 3 ) THE principal defence set-up by the defendant in his written statement is that the plaintiff has filed forged and tampered evidence/documents to prove his case. It is alleged that the plaintiff has made changes, interpolations/insertions etc. at various places in the said agreement to sell. During the last year the defendant was suffering from severe financial problems and bad health. Ashok kapoor contemner offered to help him financially by giving him loan of Rupees one lac on the condition that he enters into an agreement to sell off a portion of property belonging to him. Ashok Kapoor came with a draft agreement to sell but the name of kuldeep Kapoor was mentioned as prospective purchaser. Ashok Kapoor claimed that Kuldeep kapoor was his brother and being a moneyed man, he used to advance loans to such people in distress. Consequently, a total sum of Rupees one lac was paid by Ashok Kapoor on behalf of Kuldeep Kapoor as a loan amount. Ashok Kapoor in order to secure the said loan amount got the above said agreement to sell executed with his brother kuldeep Kapoor. A sum of Rupees Fifty thousand was paid to the plaintiff by cheque dated 08. 10. 2004, Rupees Twenty thousand were given to him in cash against a receipt. On 20. 10. 2004, the balance amount of rupees Thirty thousand was given by Ashok kapoor to the defendant and receipt for the same was issued by the defendant. The original agreement to sell was got signed by the defendant. Ashok Kumar took it for getting it signed from Kuldeep Kapoor but it was never given back to the defendant and was not got registered. The defendant has filed on record the photocopy of receipt dated 20th October, 2004, which reveals that the defendant had received a sum of Rupees thirty thousand and not Rupees Two lacs. Secondly, para no. Ashok Kumar took it for getting it signed from Kuldeep Kapoor but it was never given back to the defendant and was not got registered. The defendant has filed on record the photocopy of receipt dated 20th October, 2004, which reveals that the defendant had received a sum of Rupees thirty thousand and not Rupees Two lacs. Secondly, para no. 4 of the agreement runs as follows:- "4. That if the deal is not matured within six months from the date of signing of this agreement under any circumstances, the first patty will refund the advance earnest money with interest to the second party. " The defendant has alleged that the plaintiff has very cleverly put cross-marks on the said clause to show that the same was deleted by the defendant. However, the copy of agreement left with the defendant reveals that the defendant had never deleted that clause. ( 4 ) WHEN plaintiff failed to return the original agreement, the defendant decided to return the earnest money of Rupees One lac in terms of clause 4 of the agreement. The defendant decided to dispose of his entire property. The defendant first approached ashok Kumar but when no settlement could be reached, he then approached other developers and made an agreement with them, who took possession of the abovesaid property and demolished the same in March 2005. In February 2005, the defendant paid back a sum of Rupees Fifty thousand by way of demand draft dated 14. 02. 2005 in favour of the plaintiff and another Rupees Fifty thousand was paid in cash to the plaintiff on the same day. As per terms of clause 4 of the agreement, the plaintiff accepted the cash amount of Rupees Fifty thousand but did not accept the demand draft dated 14. 02. 2005 and insisted that payment be made in cash. Another amount of Rupees fifty thousand was given by way of cash to Kuldeep Kapoor. When the plaintiff demanded receipts, the plaintiff told him that the matter stood settled, there was no need of issuing of receipts. Ashok Kapoor informed him that the original agreement to sell dated 08. 10. 2004 had been destroyed. The defendant informed the plaintiff through the registered letter that the defendant had paid the full loan amount back, but it was received back with the remarks, "addressee has refused to accept". On 08. 05. Ashok Kapoor informed him that the original agreement to sell dated 08. 10. 2004 had been destroyed. The defendant informed the plaintiff through the registered letter that the defendant had paid the full loan amount back, but it was received back with the remarks, "addressee has refused to accept". On 08. 05. 2005 Kuldeep Kapoor in presence of his brother Ashok Kapoor and his wife Priya i Kapoor issued a receipt acknowledging that he had received the full amount of loan along with interest from the defendant in February 2005. Mrs. Priya Kappor signed it as a witness. ( 5 ) ON 02. 09. 2005, the Court recorded the statements of the parties on 5th September, 2005. The plaintiff in his statement under order 10 CPC denied that he knew Ashok kumar, who was the attesting witness to the document. In his affidavit he had given a different address. When he was asked why he had given the incorrect address, he refused to reply. The conduct of the plaintiff compelled the Single Judge to call the witnesses. Contemnor Girdhari Lal was a party to the forged and fabricated documents and made incorrect statements before the court and even intentionally avoided to answer the court questions telling patent lies. He also apologized to the Court and assured that he would answer the court's questions truthfully. Kuldeep Kumar stated that when he signed the agreement there were blanks and the blanks were subsequently filled up in presence of defendant's witness but Girdhari Lal in his statement recorded on 07/09/2005 stated that when he signed the agreement to sell there were no blanks. The plaintiff also failed to comply with his assurances and refused to answer the questions regarding the tampered documents. The learned Single Judge observed :- "a typed print which has been rubbed off of Rs. 30,000/- in cash was clearly visible to naked eye but was subsequently hand-written below as Rs. 2 lacs. But on these, plaintiff and the attesting witness refused to answer and even refused to read which could be seen by a naked eye in open Court. " Then the documents were sent to the cfsl which confirmed that above said two documents were forged. In his statement recorded on 10/09/2005 Ashok Kapoor admitted that there were blanks when he signed the agreement with respect to the amount raised. " Then the documents were sent to the cfsl which confirmed that above said two documents were forged. In his statement recorded on 10/09/2005 Ashok Kapoor admitted that there were blanks when he signed the agreement with respect to the amount raised. Witness was shown the documents which were still having the blanks but he tried to evade straight answers. He was warned. He admitted that the original agreement which was got typed by him and photocopies of document shown to him in the Court are the copies of the original documents and there are blanks in that (emphasis supplied ). The witness was evasive in his replies and he was warned time and again. The plaintiff failed to file replication despite serious charges were levelled against him. Contempt proceedings were initiated and the case was referred to the Bench. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the contemnors and learned Amicus Curiae as per Full Bench authority (consisting of 5 judges) reported in Court on its own motion Vs. Kasturi Lal AIR 1980 Punjab and haryana 72. The six pronged argument urged by the learned counsel for the contemnors is this. To top it all, he picked up a conflict with the procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that order 10 Rule 1 CPC, is limited to ascertaining admissions and denials in pleadings, where there is a lack of clarity on these. Again under order 10 Rule 2, the Court may orally examine the party or a companion of party present in the court to provide answers for material questions in the suit. It further provides that in case a party refuses to answer questions on the appointed day either a judgment may be pronounced against him or any other order be made in relation to the suit. The learned counsel cited an authority reported in Manmohan Das and others Vs. Mt. Ramdei and another, AIR 1931 Privy council 175, where it was held:- "before considering the case on its merits their Lordships desire to draw attention to the procedure which has been adopted in the taking of the evidence. At the trial before the subordinate Judge the evidence first recorded is that of the defendant, Behari lal, who is described as a "court-witness" and appears to have been called into the witness-box by the Judge himself. At the trial before the subordinate Judge the evidence first recorded is that of the defendant, Behari lal, who is described as a "court-witness" and appears to have been called into the witness-box by the Judge himself. The record before their Lordships discloses no justification for this unusual proceeding. No doubt under Order 10, rule 2, any party present in Court may be examined orally by the Court at any stage of the hearing, and the Court may if it thinks fit put in the course of such examination questions suggested by either party, But this power is intended to be used by the Judge only when he finds it necessary to obtain from such party information on any material questions relating to the suit and ought not to be employed so as to supersede the ordinary procedure at trial as prescribed in Order 18. Here the burden on the plaintiffs was to prove their case in ordinary course, yet the proceedings at the trial opened by the Court calling on one of the defendants to give evidence not on any specific points, but on the whole case, and the witness is then cross- examined at length, not through the court, but by the other parties themselves. Doubtless Behari Lal, who was deeply implicated in the remarkable transactions which the Court had to investigate, knew most about the whole affair, and the Judge may have thought it useful to hear at the outset his account of the matter, but in the absence of some more cogent reason their Lordships cannot approve of such a deviation from normal and proper procedure. " ( 7 ) HE also cited another authority in reference Arunagiri Goundan Vs. Vasantharoya Koundan and others, AIR (36) 1949 Madras 707 wherein it was held :- "order 10, Rule 2 does not provide for an examination on oath. This provision was intended to be used to elucidate the matters in controversy in suit before the trial began. " He also referred to other authorities in this context which are reported in Sher Singh and Others Vs. Pirthi Singh and Others AIR 1975 All 259 , Balmiki Singh Vs. Mathura prasad and others, AIR 1968 All 259 and pritpal Singh Kohli Vs. Smt. Surjit Kaur and another, AIR 2001 Delhi 363. " He also referred to other authorities in this context which are reported in Sher Singh and Others Vs. Pirthi Singh and Others AIR 1975 All 259 , Balmiki Singh Vs. Mathura prasad and others, AIR 1968 All 259 and pritpal Singh Kohli Vs. Smt. Surjit Kaur and another, AIR 2001 Delhi 363. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the contemnors argued with vehemence that the procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge was not merely illegal but void. In this context he has drawn our attention towards an authority reported in Official Trustee, West Bengal and Others Vs. Sachindra Nath Chatterjee and Another, AIR 1969 S. C. 823, wherein, it was held that taking statement of the plaintiff on oath under Order 10 as aforesaid, summoning witnesses and seeking evidence on oath as aforesaid were without jurisdiction. Similarly, seeking explanation of the facts stated under oath under Order 10 and then finding the replies given with or without affidavits as misleading and causes for contempt is not accordance with provisions of law. It is pointed out that at best learned single Judge could have proceeded under. Order 10 Rule 4 and initiated action with regard to the suit as provided therein and as discussed in Sewaram Uadji Vs. Munna moti and Another, AIR 1959 Madhya Pradesh 5. ( 9 ) INSTEAD of touching the heart of the problem, the learned defence counsel just skirted it. The above cited authorities do not dovetail with the facts of the present case. It must be borne in mind that procedure envisaged for civil suits is not to be followed in contempt of courts proceedings. It is well settled that the High Court can deal with contempts summarily, adopt its own procedure, all that is required, is that the procedure is fair, the contemnor is made aware of the charge against him and is given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. It must be borne in mind that the procedures laid down in C. P. C. or Cr. P. C pale into insignificance. The Apex Court in sukhdev Singh Vs. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR 454 : AIR 1954 SC 186 : 1954 Cri LJ 460 was pleased to hold :- "we hold therefore that the Code of criminal Procedure does not apply in matters of contempt triable by the High court. P. C pale into insignificance. The Apex Court in sukhdev Singh Vs. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR 454 : AIR 1954 SC 186 : 1954 Cri LJ 460 was pleased to hold :- "we hold therefore that the Code of criminal Procedure does not apply in matters of contempt triable by the High court. The High Court can deal with it summarily and adopt its own procedure. All that is necessary is that the procedure is fair and that the contemner is made aware of the charge against him and given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. This rule was laid down by the Privy Council in In re pollard (LR 2 PC 106 at 120) and was followed in India and in Burma in In re vallabhdas (ILR 27 Bom 394 at 399) and Ebrahim Mamoojee Parekh Vs. King Emperor (ILR 4 Rang 257 at 259- 261 ). In our view that is still the law. " ( 10 ) IN Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of M. P. , air 1992 SC 904 , it was laid down :- "prior to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it was held that the High Court has inherent power to deal with a contempt of itself summarily and to adopt its own procedure, provided that it gives a fair and reasonable opportunity to the contemnor to defend himself. But the procedure has now been prescribed by Section 15 of the Act in exercise of the powers conferred by entry 14, List III of the Seventh schedule of the Constitution. Though the contempt jurisdiction of the supreme Court and the High Court can be regulated by legislation by appropriate legislature under Entry 77 of List I and Entry 14 of List III in exercise of which the Parliament has enacted the Act of 1971, the contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court is given a constitutional foundation by declaring to be 'courts of Record' under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution and, therefore, the inherent power of the Supreme Court and the High Court cannot be taken away by any legislation short of constitutional amendment. In fact, section 22 of the Act lays down that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of courts. In fact, section 22 of the Act lays down that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of courts. It necessarily follows that the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court under Articles 129 and 215 cannot be curtailed by anything in the Act of 1971. The above position of law has been well settled by this court in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi Vs. Chief Justice and Judges of the pepsu High Court, 1954 SCR 454 : air 1954 SC 186 : 1954 Cri U 460 , thus: (SCR p. 463 ). ( 11 ) IN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Others, 1997, 3 SCC 11. It was observed : "being a court of record the High Court (i) has power to determine the question about its own jurisdiction; and (ii) has inherent power to punish for its contempt summarily. The aforesaid twin incidents of a court of record are well established by a catena of decisions of this Court. " ( 12 ) THE same view was taken in Delhi Judicial service Association, Tis Hazari court, delhi Vs. State of Gujarat and Others and other connected matters, AIR 1991 sc 2176 . ( 13 ) MOREOVER, the recording of statements on oath under Order 10 CPC is not always fatal. In Arunagiri versus Vasanta Roya koundan and others (Supra), the Court was ultimately satisfied that that procedure had not resulted in any miscarriage of Justice. ( 14 ) FOR all these reasons, the argument urged by the learned counsel for the contemnors must be eschewed out of consideration. ( 15 ) NOW I turn to the second limb of the argument advanced by the counsel for the contemnors. He pointed out that the contemnors could not understand as to why and for what purpose they were being proceeded against the Contempt of Court act. He argued that acts of contempt were never explained to them. It is alleged that no express grounds were given in the show cause notice. In paras no. 5 and 6 of his reply dated 26. 09. 2005 in IA No. 7088 Ashok kapoor respectfully sought grounds/actions on which contempt notice was issued. Para 5 and 6 of his reply run as follows:- "5. It is alleged that no express grounds were given in the show cause notice. In paras no. 5 and 6 of his reply dated 26. 09. 2005 in IA No. 7088 Ashok kapoor respectfully sought grounds/actions on which contempt notice was issued. Para 5 and 6 of his reply run as follows:- "5. That after engaging the present counsel, the alleged Contemnor has come to know that there is no contempt Petition No. 7088 of 2005 pending in this Hon'ble Court as mentioned in the Notice of Motion. In fact, there is an application being an la. No. 7088 of 2005 filed by the defendant under Section 340 of the code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it is requested and prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Registrar of the high Court to furnish to the alleged contemnor the copy of the Order passed by this Hon'ble Court which forms the basis of the contempt proceedings along with other documents etc. relied upon by this Hon'ble Court to enable the alleged Contemnor to file the reply affidavit to the same. " ( 16 ) HIS arguments reveal a lack of reaslism. Show cause notices were issued to Ashok kapoor on 10. 09. 2005, Kuldeep Kapoor on 23. 09. 2005 and Girdhari Lal on 16. 01. 2006. All the details were mentioned in the above said notices. (I) Regarding Ashok Kumar, the order dated 10. 09. 2005 detailing the notice runs into three pages. The relevant extract of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as follows : "mr. Ashok Kapoor, who is present in court, is also issued notice under provisions of Section 12 and 15 of the contempt of Court Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act be not initiated against him in view of his conduct before the court as is clear from the copy of the statement recorded in Court today and the various directions/orders made by the Court during recording of the said statement. The observations made during the recording of the statement shall form the basis to which he is called upon to submit reply to the show cause notice. The observations made during the recording of the statement shall form the basis to which he is called upon to submit reply to the show cause notice. " It was also ordered that the documents in question be sent to the F. S. L The court had made seven queries. The learned Single Judge also noticed, "it may be noticed at this stage that mark 'y' and 'y-1' clearly bear typing/ computer print marks and the expression 'cash' is visible to the naked eye. However, the figures typed cannot be exactly deciphered. The expert shall also give his opinion in relation to marks 'y' and 'y-1' if at all something has been typed or computer printed and later on rubbed. " (II) Now, we turn to the case of kuldeep Kapoor. The order sheet dated 23. 09. 2005 is a two pages order, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the report of the FSL, Delhi, had been received. The relevant extract runs as follows: "mr. Kuldeep Kapoor, plaintiff is present in Court. The report of the FSL, Delhi has been received. The plaintiff had relied upon the documents which have apparently been tampered and have been given from the power and possession of the plaintiff besides telling incorrect things in court on solemn affirmation. The plaintiff has also given intentionally incorrect address in his plaint to mislead the court. During his statement he has conceded that he has given incorrect address in the plaint but did not give any reason why it was done. The conduct of the plaintiff during previous hearing clearly shows that he is undermining the dignity of administration of justice and is hampering the judicial process before this court. In view of the statement made by him in court, the report of the FSL as well as his behavior before the court including giving the false address even on oath before the court are few instances of his behavior which ex facie is contemptuous and amounts to interfering with the administration of justice. Before any further steps are taken, let a notice to show cause be issued to the plaintiff as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India be not initiated against him and be dealt with in accordance with law. Plaintiff who is present in court accepts notice. Before any further steps are taken, let a notice to show cause be issued to the plaintiff as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India be not initiated against him and be dealt with in accordance with law. Plaintiff who is present in court accepts notice. Copy of this order be given to him dast. Reply to the show cause shall be filed within three days from today. " Ill Now, we advert to notice dated 16. 01. 2006 pertaining to Girdhari Lal. This order runs into four pages. In this order the entire report of handwriting expert was reproduced and order also contained the following extract :- "in view of the above circumstances and that said Mr. Girdhari Lal has been a party to the forged and fabricated documents and made incorrect statements before the Court and even intentionally avoided to answer the court questions telling patent lies. Reference in this regard can also be made to the following portion of the order dated 7th September, 2005. "mr. Girdhari Lal, the witness who was intentionally avoiding to answer the questions of the Court and was patently telling lies, later on, apologies to the court and assured that without demur he will answer the Court's questions truthfully and correctly. In the interest of justice, no further action is called for at this stage. Let his statement, which was commenced in the morning be continued. " "in view of the above circumstances and particularly in view of the report of the report of the Forensic Laboratory, a notice to show cause is issued to Mr. Girdhari Lal as to why the contempt proceedings under the provisions of contempt of Courts Act read with article 215 of the Constitution of India, be not initiated against him for the above conduct. Reply to the show cause notice be filed on or before 19. 01. 2006 on which date the matter is listed for directions. " All the three contemnors gave their respective replies and admitted that they had received the show cause notices. Their replies themselves go to show that they understood for what purpose the contempt of proceedings were being conducted against them. Ashok Kapoor and Girdhari Lal tendered unconditional apologies. 01. 2006 on which date the matter is listed for directions. " All the three contemnors gave their respective replies and admitted that they had received the show cause notices. Their replies themselves go to show that they understood for what purpose the contempt of proceedings were being conducted against them. Ashok Kapoor and Girdhari Lal tendered unconditional apologies. They very well knew that the documents had been tampered with, they had given false affidavits and made wrong statements before the court. ( 17 ) AGAIN, the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 16. 01. 2006-clearly mentions that a copy of order dated 10. 09. 2005 be furnished to the Contemnor by the Registry on 12. 09. 2005. Vide order dated 27. 09. 2005, counsel were also granted liberty to inspect the court file. Learned counsel could not inspect the file due to his other commitments. Second time opportunity was granted "to conduct inspection and take certified copies". It, therefore, clearly means that opportunity to understand the case and defend the contempt proceedings was given to the contemnors. ( 18 ) THE next argument urged by learned counsel for the contemnors was that the opportunity to defend was not given to the contemnors. It was pointed out that the burden of proving forgeries in Clause 4 of the above said agreement and in receipt dated 20. 10. 2004 rested on the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the contemnors further pointed out that the report received from the CFSL did state that two inks were used to ratify the correction of the said clause 4 in the said agreement and there were some surface disturbance on the paper of the receipt dated 20. 10. 2004. Learned counsel submitted that these findings were not tested by the cross- examination of CFSL expert. He contended that for example there is no surprise, if two parties used their own pens for signatures there could have been more than one possible explanation. ( 19 ) WITHOUT sound reasoning no argument will cohere. No amount of rhetoric can change the reality. For a variety of reasons we find that the abovesaid argument is without merit. The order dated 16. 01. 2006 goes to show, that contemnors had filed an application under section 14 (2) of Contempt of Courts Act which was withdrawn vide order dated 30. 09. No amount of rhetoric can change the reality. For a variety of reasons we find that the abovesaid argument is without merit. The order dated 16. 01. 2006 goes to show, that contemnors had filed an application under section 14 (2) of Contempt of Courts Act which was withdrawn vide order dated 30. 09. 2005 with liberty to file the same at the subsequent stage, 'if need arises'. However, there is no inkling on the record that the contempt application was ever moved by the contemnors. ( 20 ) THIS is noteworthy that despite serious allegations were levelled against the, contemnors, they did not choose to file the replication, though record reveals that number of opportunities were granted to the contemnors to file the replication but the needful was not done. No explanation, lucid or lame is forthcoming. ( 21 ) THE contemnors never made any request to the Court that they wanted to cross examine the witnesses. They did not pray to the Court that they wanted to cross examine the handwriting expert. List of witnesses did not mention the name of expert C. F. S. L. ( 22 ) THE point of infinite importance, the clincher and due to which all the doubts prove to be purile and baseless is the withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff himself. Issues were framed in this case vide orders dated 25. 10. 2005. The case was fixed for evidence of the petitioners. The interim stay was vacated vide order dated 24. 11. 2005. The plaintiff filed list of witnesses on 05. 11. 2005, which contained the names of plaintiff Kuldeep Kapoor, Ashok Kapoor, girdhari Lal and Prabir Chakraborty. The name of handwriting expert is conspicuously missing. No evidence was led by the parties on 30. 11. 2005. The case was adjourned to 06. 12. 2005. The counsel for the plaintiff stated that he would lead the evidence on 19. 12. 2005 and he would examine five witnesses besides the plaintiff. In the meantime, application under Section 340 Cr. P. C. was decided on 08. 12. 2005. The plaintiff did not appear on 15. 12. 2005. At the request of the plaintiff adjournment was granted on 04. 01. 2006. On 04. 01. 2006 plaintiff moved an application under order 23 Rule 1 CPC for permission to withdraw the suit. At this stage, the contempt application was still pending. On 16. 01. 12. 2005. The plaintiff did not appear on 15. 12. 2005. At the request of the plaintiff adjournment was granted on 04. 01. 2006. On 04. 01. 2006 plaintiff moved an application under order 23 Rule 1 CPC for permission to withdraw the suit. At this stage, the contempt application was still pending. On 16. 01. 2006 arguments on withdrawal of the case were heard and application for withdrawal of the case was permitted subject to payment of Rs. One lac as costs, out of which Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid to the defendant and Rs. 25,000/- each to Delhi Legal services Authority and Delhi High Court Library fund. ( 23 ) THE abovesaid discussion also reveals that the learned Single Judge had adopted two different procedures one for contempt of court proceedings and another for the suit as such. He had no intention to dispose of the case under Order 10 CPC itself. ( 24 ) IT is difficult to fathom as to why did the plaintiff withdraw the suit when so much serious allegations were made against the plaintiff and attesting witnesses. They should have taken up the guanlet. They should have accepted the challenge to contest this case. Why did they cave in can be anybody's guess. It must be borne in mind that on the one hand the contemnors are complaining that, although, they were not given a chance to produce evidence or they were not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses including the hand writing expert, yet, on the other hand they thought it proper to get the entire suit withdrawn. Their goose was cooked when they found that the forgeries committed by them, false affidavits filed by them and untruth spoken by them had come to the notice of the Court. This crucial fact takes the edge off the criticism. ( 25 ) MOREOVER, the contemnors have almost admitted that they had committed the contempt of Court Act in their replies. They have not shown any desire to contest the contempt of court proceedings in their replies. In para no. 9 and 10 of his reply, the plaintiff mentioned :- "9. That I say that I have discovered the name of the person who has filled in his handwriting the agreement to sell and the receipt relied upon by this hon'ble Court which form the basis of contempt proceedings. In para no. 9 and 10 of his reply, the plaintiff mentioned :- "9. That I say that I have discovered the name of the person who has filled in his handwriting the agreement to sell and the receipt relied upon by this hon'ble Court which form the basis of contempt proceedings. I further say that I am trying to locate the address of the said person whose name is Mr. Chakraborty who accompanied the defendant at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 08. 10. 2004 and the said receipt. 10. That I say that after locating the address of Mr. said Chakraborty I shall produce him as a plaintiffs witness during the trial. " The plaintiff, ultimately withdrew the suit itself. ( 26 ) GIRDHARI Lal mentioned :- " (1) I have received the show cause notice in the aforesaid case and I want to submit in reply that if any mistake has been committed by me, I pray to this Hon'ble Court that I may please be pardoned for it. , (2) I have submitted this reply voluntarily on my own without any pressure. " ( 27 ) IN his reply Ashok Kapoor admitted that the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order whereby the show cause notice had been given to the respondent "why the contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the replying respondents". Firstly he stated that he tendered the unconditional apology with folded hands and sought pardon from this court. He explained that "he is a semi illiterate person who does not have knowledge about the court proceedings. " secondly, he stated that he made the true and correct statements of facts before the court. He, however, explained that the documents in question were never in his power, possession and custody. He denied knowledge about the tampering of the above said documents. He explained that Ashok kapoor and Ashok Kumar is the same person. e. the contemnor himself. He again tendered unconditional apology to the court. It is pertinent to note that he did not ask for any defence to be led by him. ( 28 ) NOW we turn to the next submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the contemnors. In his written synopsis, the counsel for the petitioner has mentioned an authority reported in L. P. Mishra Vs. It is pertinent to note that he did not ask for any defence to be led by him. ( 28 ) NOW we turn to the next submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the contemnors. In his written synopsis, the counsel for the petitioner has mentioned an authority reported in L. P. Mishra Vs. State of UP, AIR 1998 S. C. 3337, wherein it was held that under Article 215 of the Constitution of India high Court had power to punish on its own contempt in accordance with provisions of contempt of Court Act, 1971. Again Clause 13 (a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 states that there should be substantial interference with due course of justice in order to impose a sentence. It was argued that if the Learned Single Judge felt that in the oral examination under 0. X of CPC certain facts including the plaintiffs address were under cloud, it does not amount to substantial interference, particularly since it has been held in Balmiki Singh versus Mathura Prasad and others (Supra) that admissions under 0. X are elucidatory and not conclusive. It was also argued that in adversarial civil litigation, parties normally prove their case including allegations of wrong statements or fabrication, and that the role of the Presiding Office under o. X is merely elucidatory to narrow the issues in the case. ( 29 ) IT is also pointed out that petitioner are barely illiterate and had no intention or prejudice or interfere with or obstruct either due course for any judicial proceeding or administration of justice as set out in Section 2 (C) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. It was also argued that there was regular advocate who left the case around 19. 09. 2005 and many times contemnors appeared without any legal guidelines and also were unfamiliar with court procedure. ( 30 ) TO our mind, these arguments carry no conviction. The following authorities evince the hollowness of this argument. The observations of Rugg, C. J. in Blankenburg vs. Commonwealth, 172 NE 209 (211); 73 alr 808 (812) are pertinent in this regard : "the province of the courts in cases brought before them is to ascertain the truth to vindicate rights, to redress wrong and to do justice according to established principles of law. The observations of Rugg, C. J. in Blankenburg vs. Commonwealth, 172 NE 209 (211); 73 alr 808 (812) are pertinent in this regard : "the province of the courts in cases brought before them is to ascertain the truth to vindicate rights, to redress wrong and to do justice according to established principles of law. Those who are interested in perverting rights and escaping the consequences of evil conduct have an interest in obstructing the course of justice in the courts. Ingenious efforts have not been wanting for obstructing the courts by numerous means. An obvious one is to attempt to influence the decision by false testimony. " ( 31 ) IN Ex parte Hudgins, 240 US 378, 382- 383, it was observed :- "because perjury is a crime defined by law and one committing it may be tried and punished, it does not necessarily establish that when committed in the presence of a court, it may not, when exceptional conditions so justify, be the subject-matter for punishment for contempt. . . . . . . . . . . An obstruction to the performance of judicial duty resulting from an act done in the presence of the court is then the characteristic upon which the power to punish for contempt must rest. This being true, it follows that the presence of that element must clearly be shown in every case where the power to punish for contempt is exerted-a principle which, applied to the subject in hand, exacts that in order to punish perjury in the presence of the court as a contempt, there must be added to the essential elements of perjury under the general law the further element of obstruction to the court in the performance of its duty. " (Quoted from V. G. Ramachandran's contempt of Court - Justice V. K. Mehrctra, Sixth Edition ). ( 32 ) IN Murrary and Co. Vs. Ashok Kumar newatia and another, (2000) 2 SCC 367 , it was held :- "while it is true that the contexual facts do not depict any drawing of advantage of even any attempt to gain any advantage through the statement as made in the affidavit noted hereinbefore, but there is no dispute as such on the factum of a false and fabricated statement finding its place in the affidavit. The statement cannot be termed to be a mere denial though reflected in the affidavit as such. Positive assertion of a fact in an affidavit known to be false cannot just be ignored. It is a deliberate act. It cannot be contended that the statement has been made without realising the purport of the same. It is not a mere denial of fact but a positive assertion and as such made with the definite intent to pass off a falsity and if possible to gain advantage. This practice of having a false statement incorporated in an affidavit filed before a court should always be deprecated and we do hereby record the same. The fact that the deponent has in thereby rendered himself guilty of contempt of this Court as noticed hereinbefore. This Court would be failing in its duties, if the matter in question is not dealt with in a manner proper and effective for maintenance of the majesty of courts as otherwise the law courts would lose their efficacy to the litigant public. ( 33 ) IN Afzal and another Vs. State of haryana and others, 1996 (7) SCC 397 , it was held that deliberately and willfully making a false or misleading or a wrong statement by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would amount to criminal contempt. ( 34 ) IN Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar, 1995 (1) SCC 421 , it was observed:- "to enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that truth alone triumphs, is an achievable aim there; or it is virtue which ends in victory, is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts. " ( 35 ) IN D. C. M. Limited Vs. Lt. Governor, delhi and others, 1994 II AD (DELHI) 509 = 54 (1994) DLT 521 (FB), it was held:- "similarly, the affidavits on this score of other office bearers of this Association show complete disregard for the judicial administration of truth. " ( 35 ) IN D. C. M. Limited Vs. Lt. Governor, delhi and others, 1994 II AD (DELHI) 509 = 54 (1994) DLT 521 (FB), it was held:- "similarly, the affidavits on this score of other office bearers of this Association show complete disregard for the judicial administration of truth. We reject the affidavits filed by the contemnors and hold them guilty of having committed criminal contempt of this Court. " ( 36 ) THE abovesaid view stands further emboldened by other authorities reported in hira Lal Dixit Vs. State of M. P, AIR 1954 sc 743 , U. P. Sales Tax Service Association vs. Taxation Bar Association Agra 1995 (5) SCC 716 and S. R. Ramaraj Vs. Special court Bombay, 2003 VII AD (S. C.) 192 = 2003 (7) SCC 175 . ( 37 ) IT was next contended that exactly the same statements and the allegations of fabrications were implied in criminal complaint no. 130/2006 before the court of ACMM patiala House, New Delhi under the direction of the learned Single Judge vide his judgment under IA No. 7088/2005 in suit no. 821/ 2005 dated 08. 12. 2005 under Section 340 cr. PC. The respondents have been put to trial under provisions of IPC for the same acts which the learned Single Judge has found as causes of contempt. Is it a case of double jeopardy. ( 38 ) THE leaned Single Judge has discussed this point and found no favour with it. Regarding the question of double jeopardy the learned Single Judge has relied upon Apex court authority reported in Delhi Judicial service Association, Tis Hazari Court, delhi Vs. State of Gujarat and others, air 1991 SC 2178. The learned counsel for the contemnors could not show that the above said authority is not applicable to this case. It 'was clearly, specifically and unequivocally pointed out that contempt proceedings would not offend Article 20 (3) of the Constitution and there would be no element of compulsion. ( 39 ) IT is lastly contended that respondents have suffered a great deal and this court may kindly forgive their offences for contempt if they have been committed inadvertently. Again, the contemnors tender an apology in this regard and assure the court that they have no attention to reduce the majesty of law. ( 39 ) IT is lastly contended that respondents have suffered a great deal and this court may kindly forgive their offences for contempt if they have been committed inadvertently. Again, the contemnors tender an apology in this regard and assure the court that they have no attention to reduce the majesty of law. ( 40 ) THIS is well settled that the apology should be spontaneous and it should come at the earliest stage. The but and ben stance taken by the contemnors go to destroy the concept of apology. The flip-flops of the contemnors have baffled the court. Do they deserve apology at the fag end of this case. Moreover, in view of facts and circumstances of this case, they do not deserve apologies at any stage of the proceedings. This view finds support from authorities reported in Curader shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma 1995 (1) scc 421 ; Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of m. P. (Supra); Murry and Co. (Supra); In re: Secretary Hailakandi Bar Association vs. State of Assam and another, 1996 (9) SCC 74 , contemnor was sentenced to three months S.. ; In Re: Bineet Kumar singh, AIR 2001 SC 2018 the Court imposed sentence of six months imprisonment on the contemnors. The last two cases were in respect of filing false pleadings before the court. ( 41 ) WE, therefore, sentence the contemnors kuldeep Kumar and Ashok Kumar to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- failing which they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for twenty days. The case of Girdhari Lal is different from remaining two contemnors. He was simply a witness. Therefore, we take a lenient view against him. Girdhari Lal is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- failing which he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. They are directed to surrender in Tihar Jail immediately and on their failure to do so, we direct the Police commissioner, Delhi, to issue orders for arresting them to serve out the sentence. Copies of this order be sent to the Police commissioner, S. H. O. , Tilak Marg and superintendent, Tihar Jail for compliance of the order. We record our appreciation for the assistance provided by the Amicus Curiae.