State vs Bodh Raj Munawari

J.N. Wazir, C.J.—The facts which gave rise to these contempt proceedings briefly stated are these. An application was made by Mr. Bodh

Raj Manawari, Bhabhara Bazar, Jammu, to the Chief Justice on the 24th April, 1956 praying that in a case Bodh Raj versus Ramparsnad through

L. Kaushi Ram Jain enquiry be conducted and justice done to him. In the body of the application he has mentioned that he had executed a lease-

deed in respect of the house in Bhabhara Bazar in favour of Ramparshad and was paying Rs. 16/- p.m. as rent. A portion of that house was

acquired by the Government and he made an application for reduction of rent before the Rent Controller on the ground that a portion of the house

had been acquired by the Government. According to Mr. Bodh Raj a long time was taken by the Rent Controller in disposing of his application

and he had to incur great expense and inconvenience.

He has quoted extracts from the order of the Rent Controller and has adversely commented upon them. He further mentioned that he filed an

appeal against the order of the Rent Controller but the appeal came up for hearing after eight months. He appeared before the Provincial, Rent

Controller who in the course of arguments remarked that the appellant would have to pay the rent and also to vacate the house. On hearing these

remarks Mr. Bodh Raj says that he left the Court room and never appeared before the appellate Court again. He has also passed some remarks

against the lawyers appearing in the case and has prayed that an enquiry be held and justice done to him.

The application was sent to the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act who is the District Judge, Jammu with the remark that he would

expedite the disposal of the case pending before him. The District Judge returned the application of Mr. Bodh Raj with the report that the

application was couched in impertinent and improper language and he further reported that the appeal pending before him had been dismissed on

the 31st March, 1956. The District Judge further pointed out that certain remarks made by Mr. Bodh Raj in his application amounted to contempt

of Court and prayed that proceedings be taken against him. The application was Sent to the Advocate General for opinion and on receipt of his

opinion a rule was issued to Mr. Bodh Raj why he should not be dealt with for contempt. In response to the notice Mr. Bodh Raj has appeared in

Court.

We have gone through the application submitted by the respondent and also have heard the Advocate General. The question for consideration is

whether the complaint made by a litigant to the High Court that his case has not been properly conducted by a subordinate Court would constitute

the offence of contempt of Court. The learned Advocate General has drawn our attention to certain passages in the complaint and has argued that

the language used by the respondent was so impertinent and improper towards the Court and the counsel appearing in the case, that it constituted

contempt of Court. This argument is without force. The respondent felt aggrieved with the orders of the Rent Controller and of the appellate

authority and he applied to the High Court for redressing his grievance.

Although the language used in criticising the I orders was not proper and polite yet in our opinion it would not constitute the offence of con- tempt

of Court. The respondent has complained that his case was disposed of after considerable delay and he had been put to inconvenience and

expense. He has further blamed the counsel appearing against him for prolonging the case before the Rent Controller. These, according to him,

were his genuine grievances and in our opinion do not constitute contempt of Court. Moreover, the Advocate General has not been able to cite

any authority to show that the language used in an application addressed to the High Court criticising the judgment of the lower Courts, being

impertinent and improper, would constitute contempt of Court.

We are, therefore, satisfied that the remarks made by the respondent in his application would not constitute the offence of contempt off Court

and we discharge the rule issued against the respondent.

M.A. Shahmiri, J.

I agree.

J.L. Kilam, J.

I agree, to the order proposed.