Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 245 (JK)

Vidya Devi v. Sham Dass

2008-06-05

SUNIL HALI

body2008
1. A suit for eviction was filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners on the ground that petitioners committed default in payment of rent and the suit property was reasonably required by the landlord for re-construction. The suit was decreed by the trial court against which an appeal was preferred before this court. During the pendency of the appeal present contempt application came to be filed by the petitioners. It was alleged in the contempt application that respondent No. 1 had forged documents, as such has committed a criminal contempt. 2. The facts leading to present contempt application were that a dispute had arisen on the application filed by the petitioners seeking production of additional evidence under O. 41 R. 27 CPC. It had come to the knowledge of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 had entered into an agreement to sell with respondents No. 2 to 4 herein which agreement was later on cancelled. It is further alleged that the cheques mentioned in the agreement to sell being sale consideration had been received back uncashed by respondent No. 2 from respondent No. 1 herein. This plea of the respondents taken in the aforementioned application was found to be incorrect as alleged. Respondents No. 2 to 4 had not paid the money back to respondent No. 1. It was alleged that date on the cheques were changed and false endorsement of cancellation was written on the back side stating that the cheques mentioned in the deed had been returned by respondent No. 1 to respondent No.2 3. Objections to this contempt application have been filed whereby respondents have admitted the fact of agreement to sell but later on the said deed was got cancelled. 4. The petitioners claim that respondents have committed criminal contempt of court as envisaged in Section 2 sub clause (c)(iii) of Contempt of Court Act, 1997. Objections to this contempt application have been filed whereby respondents have admitted the fact of agreement to sell but later on the said deed was got cancelled. 4. The petitioners claim that respondents have committed criminal contempt of court as envisaged in Section 2 sub clause (c)(iii) of Contempt of Court Act, 1997. For facility of reference the definition of criminal contempt is reproduced herein below: - "(c) Criminal Contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding, or (iii) interferes, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner." 5. A bare perusal of aforementioned section would reveal that a criminal contempt is said to have been committed by a person if he interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstructs, the administration of justice in any other manner. So in essence, any such act would constitute a criminal contempt which has the affect of interfering with or obstructing the administration of justice. The import of this section seems to be filing of forged documents before the court where administration of justice has been impeded. It would mean that by filing these documents, some benefit has accrued to respondents No. 1 to 4 in the proceedings before the court. Otherwise it is to say that some benefit has been derived by respondents No. 1 to 4 by filing these forged documents which would results in causing obstruction in the administration of justice. It is important to mention that vide order passed on 28th November 2001 it was directed that this contempt application should be listed along with the appeal. This order has been reiterated on 26.12.2001 also. Again in order dated 18.5.2002 this court had observed that the importance of said alleged agreement to sell has to be examined in the context of the appeal which was pending before this court. It was directs that this application may be heard along with the appeal. This order has been reiterated on 26.12.2001 also. Again in order dated 18.5.2002 this court had observed that the importance of said alleged agreement to sell has to be examined in the context of the appeal which was pending before this court. It was directs that this application may be heard along with the appeal. For ready reference the operative portion of order is reproduce herein below: - "This matter also can be looked into by considering the importance of the said alleged agreement to sell in the final argument of the appeal. Therefore, list the main appeal for argument. Till then the decision of the contempt matters is deferred and shall be taken up at the time of hearing." 6. The appeal came to be allowed and disposed of on 10.2.2003 whereby suit of respondent No. 1 was dismissed. Scanning through the orders passed by this court, importance of agreement to sell was never a matter which was relevant for determining this appeal. As a matter of fact, present petitioners who were appellants have not brought the relevance of this agreement to sell to the notice of the court and rightly so because it has no relevance in the context of pleas raised in the appeal. 7. The plea taken by the petitioners in the appeal was that the appellants had not committed any default and the suit premises were not required by respondent-plaintiff for rebuilding. The appellate court agreed with the contention of the appellants and dismissed the suit of the respondents. Assuming but not admitting that the said documents filed by the petitioners were forged, do not in any way interfere or obstruct the administration of justice. 8. What constitute the contempt of court is that the statements or documents have the tendency to interfere with the due course of the pending proceeding by creating prejudice against the party, which would effect the fair hearing and disposal of the appeal. 9. The effect of this alleged forgery has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal. What is stated to have been forged by respondents is that they have entered into an agreement to sell with respondents No. 2 to 4 and as a consequence accepted the money from them. 10. The stand of respondents is that deed of agreement to sell was cancelled and money was returned back to the petitioner is not correct. What is stated to have been forged by respondents is that they have entered into an agreement to sell with respondents No. 2 to 4 and as a consequence accepted the money from them. 10. The stand of respondents is that deed of agreement to sell was cancelled and money was returned back to the petitioner is not correct. Even if it is assumed to be correct an agreement to sell does not create any title in the prospective buyer. The execution of said agreement would not in any way cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The judgments quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioners entitled Afzal & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 2326) and Dr. Ghanshayam Dev v. Dr. Ranbir Singh (2003 (2) JKJ 481 (HC) (DB) have no bearing on the present case. Facts in these judgments are entirely different from the present case. I find no force in this contempt petition which is dismissed as not maintainable. 11. This also disposes of COA No. 40/97.