Court on its own Motion vs Harish Chander

K.S. Tiwana, J.

The facts leading to these proceedings are that Suresh Chander Saggar, had filed a suit for recovery of money against M/s. Medicine Traders, Amritsar, of which the condemner, his brother Subhash Chander, his nephew and his mother Veeran Wati were the partners. During the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff filed an application under JUDGMENT 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for attachment of a plot measuring 750 square metres situated in the area of G.T. Road, Amritsar. Harish Chander condemner, who was one of the defendants in that, suit, on behalf of himself, and the partners, claimed the said plot to be of the firm. It is pertinent to mention here that the contemner had another firm working under the name and style of "Dewan Medical Hall" of which he, his brother Subhash Chander and nephew Ajay Kumar were the partners. His mother Veeran Wati was not a partner of that firm. The plot sought to be attached was in the name of M/s. Dewan Medical Hall. Along with his reply, the contemner filed an affidavit in which made the following statement :

"I further solemnly affirm that the defendentfirm carries on business under the name and style of Dewan Medical Hall of which the partners are the same as that of the Medicine Traders."

This Medicine Traders in the firm of which the contemner was a partner and against which a suit was filed by Suresh Chander Saggar.

During the pendency of the porceedings, Suresh Chander Saggar filed an application before the Civil Court trying the case to take proceedings against Harish Chander, present contemner, for contempt of the Court and also perjury for making a false statement regarding the ownership of the plot in question as also for representing that both the firm, namely, Dewan Medical Hall" and "Medicine Traders", had the same partners. The Subordinate Judge Amritsar, held on enquiry, in that application, that the contemner had deliberately made a false declaration in his affidavit. The relevant portions of the observation of the learned Subordinate Judge are :

"Respondent Harish Chander has committed an act of misleading the Court by deliberately suppressing the facts and has abused the Court''s process by making false declaration in his affidavits which he has himself admitted. He has intentionally disclosed the names of the two firms as identical but, in fact, the names of both the firm are different, and it appears that he has made this wrong and misleading statement with a view to obtaining a favourable order form the Court for the purpose of the disposal of an application under JUDGMENT 38 of 5 of the C.P.C.

The Subordinate Judge then submitted the report to this court for taking proceeding against the contemner for committing criminal contempt Rule was issued to the contemner by this Court.

In reply before this Court, the contemner reiterated his earlier stand before the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, that they had not made any wrong or false statement nor was there any intention to make those statements for the purpose of misusing the process of law or misleading the Court. Towards the end, he tendered an unconditional apology by stating that if the Court feels that he has, in any way, committed any act of contempt, then he tenders an unconditional apology which may be accepted.

Shri P.S. Kang learned counsel for the contemner, at the outset urged that the apology tendered by the contemner be accepted. The contemner, who is himself present in Court has, before us, tendered an unconditional apology for his act in filing the aforesaid affidavits which were false to the extent that his mother Veeran Wati was not a partner in the firm "M/s. Dewan Medical Hall".

After going through the report of the learned Subordinate Judge, we find that the statements in the aforesaid affidavits were made by the contemner deliberately and wilfully during the course of a litigation to prejudice the course of justice at the same stage of the judicial proceedings, so far as they related to the attachment of the plot under JUDGMENT 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of Narain Das v. Government of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 1974 SC 1252, Harish Chander contemner has, by making the statement in the circumstances noted above, committed Contempt of Court as defined in section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The unconditional apology tendered by the contemner before us appears to be an act of contrition. We do not feel like convicting him for the contempt of Court in view of his unconditional apology and accepting the same, discharge the rule.

Rule discharged.