Sudesh Kumar vs Jai Narain and another

D.S. Tewatia, J.—This petition is moved by Sudesh Kumar for punishing Jai Narain and Hart Ram sons of Jeth Ram for contempt of this Court.

The facts leading to the filing of the present petition may now be stated. The said Jai Narain and Hari Ram purchased half share in the land measuring 135 kanals and 15 Marlas and the other half was purchased by Jai Narain, Om Parkash and Siri Kishan sons of Bharat Ram in a single sale transaction. The said sale was challenged in a pre-emption suit which was decreed, and an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court at the instance of the said vendees was dismissed by the District Judge, vide his judgment dated 2nd December, 1968. That judgment was challenged by the vendees in this Court through Regular Second Appeal No. 1050 of 1969, Sled on 15th May, 1969. In the meantime, all the abovesaid five vendees sold one third of the said lend to Sudesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-, vide sale-deed dated 14th April, 1969. The said sale-deed was got registered on 12th May, 1969 and a mutation of sale was sanctioned on 25th April, 1970. Sudesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar on coming to know about the pendency of the said regular second appeal in this Court moved an application under Order 1, rule 10(2), read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code, on 10th November, 1972 for being impleaded as respondents to the said appeal which application was allowed by this Court subject to just exceptions. In the meantime on 2nd February, 1972 the said Jai Narain and Hari Ram and the preemptors-respondents Nos. 5 and 6 moved Civil Miscellaneous application No. 346-C of 1972 stating therein that the said Jai Narain and Hari Ram sons of Jeth Ram are the owners of the half share in the said land and that they had entered into a compromise with respect to their share with the pre-emptors. In pursuance of the said compromise application, this Court on 3rd February, 1972 after recording the statements of the patties concerned ordered a decree to be drawn up in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. In pursuance of the said compromise Jai Narain and Hari Ram sons of Jeth Ram received a sum of Rs. 16,000/- from the pre-emptors as the price of their share and Rs. 1,600/- as the price of the stamps and registration charges of the sale-deed.

On coming to know about the collusive deal between the pre-emptors and the said Jai Narain and Hari Ram sons of Jeth Ram, respondents to this petition, the present contempt petition against them was moved in this Court by Sudesh Kumar.

The two respondents in question put in their written statement in reply to the contempt petition. The allegation regarding sale of one-third of the land, subject matter of dispute in R. S. A. No. 1050 of 1969 in favour of Sudesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar, was admitted. However, the respondents pleaded that by virtue of the said sale transaction the vendees got no title in the land as the sale in their favour was without any monetary consideration the understanding being (though not expressly spelled out in the sale-dead) that their father would help secure the possession of the entire land from the vendors to the vendees which they otherwise had been unable to get. It was further averred that since Sudesh Kumar, etc. and their father, who was an A.S.I. in the police, failed to secure to the vendees (Jai Narain etc) the possession of any portion of the land from the vendors and thus fulfill the condition precedent for their becoming owners of the land purchased by them, so the respondent continued to be the owners of their share of the land. Thus in describing themselves in the compromise application dated 2nd February, 1972 as the owners of half of the suit land, and entitled to enter into a compromise with the pre-empters they made no false averments and consequently committed no contempt of this Court

From the perusal of the allegation in the contempt petition and the reply thereto of the respondents, it becomes quite evident that the respondents failed to bring to the notice of the Court the entire facts. They suppressed the fact of the earlier sale transaction of a part of their share in the suit land with Sudesh Kumar and his brother Sunil Kumar. If the facts pertaining to the said sale transaction had been brought to the notice of this Court, then it would not have passed the decree in terms of the compromise without first having satisfied itself fully about the respective rights of the parties and without giving opportunity to Sudesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar to file their objections if any. The above facts clearly reveal a clever move on the part of the respondents to over-reach this Court and in doing so they showed scant regard for this Court. By their action they have positively tried to prejudice the course of the judicial proceedings pending in this Court. If they had not suppressed the facts regarding the sale transaction in question with Sudesh Kumar etc., the judicial proceedings in question were likely to take a course different from the one which it took in the absence of the knowledge of the said facts.

Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, however, argued that unless a Court gives a positive finding that Sudesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar became owners of the land purchased by them in the said sale transaction, the question of the respondents having committed contempt of this Court by alleging themselves to be the owners of the said land does not arise. It was further stressed that the compromise in question did not in any manner affect the rights of Sudesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar, even if they were taken to have become the owners of the land so purchased by them.

The question that is germane for holding as to whether the respondents have committed the contempt of this Court or not is whether the respondents brought all the facts to the notice of the Court when they sought the order of the Court in terms of the compromise application and the question as to whether Sudesh Kumar and his brother became owners of the land purchased by them or not it besides the point, and so is the related question as to whether the compromise dercee affected their rights or not.

In view of the above, I have no doubt in my mind that the action of the respondents in swearing prima facie to the false facts in the affidavits and in their statements regarding the ownership of the said land and suppression of the details regarding the sale transaction with Sudesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar amounted to gross contempt of this Court as the action of the contemnor substantially interfered with the due course of justice. (The respondents have neither shown any remorse nor have offered any conditional or unconditional apology for their contemptuous conduct).

Before parting with the judgment, I mast deal with the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondents regarding the point of limitation. It has been argued by him that section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act in mandatory terms provides that the Court shall not take contempt proceedings against a contemner either Suo motu or otherwise after the expiry of one year from the date on which the contempt Is alleged to have been committed. It was asserted that since contempt was committed on February 3, 1972 the date on which the affidavit in question was filed and the statements were made in support there of the contemners could be proceeded against far contempt only upto February 3, 1973 and not thereafter. Admittedly, argued the learned counsel for the respondents the contempt application in question having been filed much beyond the said period of limitation the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.

I am afraid I do not find myself in agreement with the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. As to the date on which the contempt can be alleged to be committed within the contemplation of section 20 of the Act that has to be reckoned from the time when the Court becomes aware of the commission of its contempt and not from the data on which the act, comprehanded to be contemptuous of this Court was committed by the contemner which apparently sounded innocuous till such time when Its true nature became evident to the Court either on its own enquiry or otherwise When so viewed, the petition in question and the consequent contempt proceedings against the respondents are within time.

In the result this petition is allowed and both the respondents are convicted u/s 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act. They are ordered to undergo three months'' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of the payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.