Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 961 (MP)

Arun Kumar v. S. K. Shrivastava

2010-09-22

A.M.NAIK

body2010
ORDER 1. This is a Contempt Petition against one Shri S.K. Shrivastava, the then Civil Judge Class-2, laura, District Morena, on the ground that despite stay of proceedings of the trial Court vide order dated 20.8.200 1 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 701/2001, the learned Trial Judge decided the suit vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2003. 2. This Court vide order dated 7.1.2005 directed for issuance of notice to the respondent. Notice was made returnable within two weeks. On 4.3.2005, this Court observed that the service of notice was awaited. Office was directed to verify and list the case after the service report is received. On perusal of Part C it is revealed that Shri S.K.Shrivastava was in the meantime transferred to Bhopal as Civil Judge Class II under the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal. Accordingly, notice was issued to him through District and Sessions Judge Bhopal. There is no further document in the file to ensure that on what date Shri S.K. Shrivastava was served with notice and whether he was in fact served or not. However, this petition has been heard considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which boomeranged against the applicant himself. 3. It may be seen that the Contempt Petition has been filed by Arun Kumar, who happened to be the plaintff in Civil Suit No. 87 A/2001. He submitted Civil Revision No. 701/2001 against an interlocutory order dated 7.8.2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 87 A/2001. This Court directed on 20.8.2001 that until next date of listing, proceedings before trial Court shall remain stayed. It is stated at bar that Civil Revision No. 701/01 was not listed for hearing on or before 1.2.2003 and the order staying the proceedings of the trial Court continued to be operative till the date of judgment and decree i.e. 1.2.2003. 4. In the meantime, on dismissal of the plaintiff's appli0ation for temporary injunction by both the Courts below, Arun Kumar had filed Civil Revision No.501/2000, which was disposed of on 17.7.2002. It is revealed in this order that the revisionist himself made a prayer for expeditious disposal of the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months. This prayer was accepted and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of service of the order. It is revealed in this order that the revisionist himself made a prayer for expeditious disposal of the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months. This prayer was accepted and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of service of the order. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff/applicant while making a prayer before this Court for expeditious disposal on 17.7.2002 did not bring into notice of this Court the order dated 20.8.2001, whereby proceedings before the trial Court were stayed, though he was under as obligation to inform the same. Learned trial Judge pursuant to the order dated 17.7.2002 decided the suit on 1.2.2003 and dismissed it on merits. It seems that the plaintiff/applicant aggrieved by the dismissal has filed the Contempt Petition in order to pressurise the judicial officer, who obviously h:.3 acted in pursuance of this Court's direction dated 17.7.2002. The applicant/plaintiff cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold simultaneously. On 17.7.2002 he made a prayer before this Court for disposal of the civil suit within six months suppressing the factum of stay of proceedings in the trial Court vide order dated 20.8.2001. Now since the suit had been dismissed, it appears that the contempt petition has been filed by him on the ground that despite of stay of proceedings in the trial Court vide order dated 20.8.2001, the civil suit has been decided on merits. Perhaps, he would not have complained about it, had there been a decree in his favour. This shows the mischievous conduct on the part of the applicant/plaintiff. 5. Deliberate suppression about stay of trial Court's proceedings vide this Court's earlier order dt. 20.8.2001 passed in Civil Revision No. 701/2001 may itself amount to contempt of Court on the part of the applicant more so while making a prayer in Civil Revision No. 501/2000 to seek direction for expeditious disposal of the suit, preferably within a period of six months. It was the bounden duty of the applicant to bring into the notice of this Court that there was already a stay order in respect of the proceedings of the trial Court vide order dt.20.8.2001, so that there would not have been any occasion to issue conflicting direction to decide the suit within six months despite earlier stay order. It was the bounden duty of the applicant to bring into the notice of this Court that there was already a stay order in respect of the proceedings of the trial Court vide order dt.20.8.2001, so that there would not have been any occasion to issue conflicting direction to decide the suit within six months despite earlier stay order. This Court on being apprised of the earlier stay order would have definitely taken care of it. Appellant, who was well aware of the stay order dated 20.8.2001, himself prayed before this Court in Civil Revision No. 501/2000 for speedy disposal of the suit without brining into notice of this Court the factum of earlier stay order. Learned trial Judge was obviously bound by both the orders. In case, if he has acted in pursuance of the subsequent order dated 17.7.2002, he cannot be treated to have acted deliberately in violation of the earlier order. On the contrary, the applicant himself may be treated to have procured the subsequent order dated 17.7.2002 for expeditious disposal within six months by deliberately suppressing the earlier order with regard to stay of proceedings in the trial Court. This, indeed, may amount to contempt of Court. 6. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel in consultation with the applicant, who is present in person, prays for withdrawal of the contempt petition. 7. It may be observed that Contempt Petition is a serious matter, more so, when it is directed against a judicial officer, who is appointed through a process of selection. If cognizance of contempt petition is taken and notice is issued to the judicial officer, he constantly remains under a sword until decision of the contempt petition. Tension arising from a pending contempt petition cannot be easily imagined except by the person, who undergoes through it. This being so, a contempt petition is not to be lightly submitted that too, by a person, who himself has abused the process of law by making suppression of an important material fact. In the case in hand, it is clear that the applicant was well aware of the stay of the trial Court's proceeding due to this Court's order dated 20.8.2001 passed in Civil Revision No. 701/01. Despite this, he made a prayer before this Court in pending Civil Revision No. 501/2000 for expeditious disposal of the suit on merits, preferably, within a period of six months. Despite this, he made a prayer before this Court in pending Civil Revision No. 501/2000 for expeditious disposal of the suit on merits, preferably, within a period of six months. While making this prayer he did not disclose to this Court about the factum of stay of proceedings of the trial Court by virtue of the order dt. 20.8.2001. Learned trial Judge, who in compliance of this Court order dt. 17.7.2002 decided the suit on merits on 1.2.2003, is not found to have acted deliberately in violation of the order dated 20.8.2001. The applicant himself until decision of the suit did not submit any application in the trial Court to bring into its notice that the proceedings were stayed. Instead, by participating in the suit on merits, he virtually cooperated the trial Judge to decide the suit on merits within a frame of time prescribed by this Court vide order dt. 17.7.2002. In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned Civil Judge cannot be said to have acted deliberately in violation of the order dated 20.8.2001 and the judgment and decree rendered pursuance to this Court's order dated 17.7.2002, by no stretch of imagination can be treated as contemptuous act, on the contrary, applicant himself is liable to be saddled with an exemplary cost. 8. In the result, prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant for withdrawal of Contempt Petition is accepted subject to exemplary cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) liable to be paid by the applicant. Since, respondent has not given appearance, it is directed that the cost shall be deposited with the Advocate Bar Association, Jaura for library purpose within a period of three months. In case of violation to deposit the amount within the prescribed period, the proceeding for contempt of this Court shall be drawn against the applicant. Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid direction. Copy of this order be sent to the respondent at his place of posting for information.