ANIL PANJWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main matter, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 7919/2001 stands disposed of by the judgment separately pronounced by us today. An unsavoury off-shoot of that litigation wherein the respondent in Civil Appeal is facing a charge under S. 14 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, because of scurrilous attack against an eminent brother judge of ours in this court made through irresponsible, unfounded and reckless allegations contained in his affidavits filed during the course of proceedings, remains to be disposed of, which we hereby do.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent in the Civil Appeal, the contemnor herein, served with the charge sheet, has shown cause. We have heard him at length and with patience. Fortunately, at the end good sense has prevailed upon the contemnor. He has felt genuinely apologetic, and said so with folded hands regretting all that has happened leading to initiation of proceedings of contempt. He has, during the course of hearing, posed and reposed, expressed and re-expressed his full faith in this Court and tendered apology without any reservation. Not only he expressed so to us, he also volunteered to make a request seeking permission to withdraw his two affidavits. He, on a piece of paper, wrote out in the Court, in his own hand in vernacular an apology and prayer for leave of the Court to withdraw the insinuating affidavits. We have taken this writing on record. In view of what is stated hereinabove, we do not propose to deal with factual and legal aspects in very many details as the same is unnecessary. The bare essential facts to give an overview of the case and a few such features as are prevailing with us in formulating the operative part of this judgment, are noticed and stated hereinafter.

(3.) On the 1-12-1985 the contemnor entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property, an open plot belonging to a co-operative housing society, allotted to one of its members. He entered into peaceful possession of the property under the agreement to sell and raised a boundary wall so as to protect the property and construct a house thereon for himself at some later point of time. On 9-2-1987 he noticed a stranger attempting encroachment on the property and proposing to raise some construction thereon. He protested on the spot and rushed post-haste to the court seeking protection under the arm of the Court and preventing the encroachment in its process of commission lest it should ripen into permanency. What transpired thereafter is a harrowing tale of laws delays and the trespasser withholding the progress of legal process. To a simple suit involving the least issues and almost nil complications, either on facts or in law, the written statement to a plaint (running into a short five pages) was not filed in spite of little less than 40 adjournments spread over a period of more than 5 1/2 years and in spite of adjournment costs having also been imposed on the erring defendant at times. During these adjournments the Civil suit witnessed three transfers in different Courts. At the end the defendant and his counsel absented, resulting into ex-parte proceedings. A belated attempt for setting aside the ex parte proceedings failed in the trial Court as also in the High Court. Several delaying tactics were then employed. A belated application for cross-examination of the witnesses examined ex-parte which were not cross-examined in spite of opportunity being available, a belated application for examining his own witnesses though there was no written statement and no positive plea taken in the defence, a highly belated application to place on record a pleading by way of a counter-claim though there was no written statement filed by the defendant, were tried and vigorously pursued. All such attempts failed in the trial Court. Each of the adverse orders was put in issue by the recalcitrant defendant filing successive civil revisions in the High Court, which were all firmly dealt with by the High Court and the defendant gained no success. The only advantage gained by the defendant was to drag on the proceedings. At one stage the defendant in the suit had approached quasi judicial forum under the Co-operative Law where too he failed. The suit filed by the plaintiff on 9-2-1987, crossing all the hurdles, ended in an ex parte decree dated 8-1-2001, allowing all the reliefs sought for by the plaintiff to him. The First Appeal filed by the defendant, and an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC seeking to reopen the evidence, were dismissed. The Second appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed in limine on 16-4-2001. The defendant filed a petition in this court seeking leave to file an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. The plaintiff entered a caveat. On 16-7-2001, the Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and caveator in person (contemnor herein), directed notice to issue returnable in 4 weeks and "status quo as of today" to continue. The respondent was allowed liberty to file counter affidavit which he did. On 28-2-2001 when the matter came up for hearing an adjournment was sought for on behalf of the petitioner (i.e. the defendant), which was allowed on payment of Rs. 1000/- by way of costs. The order of status quo was allowed to continue. On 17-9-2001 the matter was directed to be placed for final disposal on 20-11-2001. On 20-11-2001 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondent (contemnor) the court granted leave and also directed the interim order to continue. In one of the affidavits filed the contemnor sought for an early out of turn hearing of his matter which could not have been allowed and so was rejected. On 16-8-2002 the contemnor had filed an affidavit which contains reckless and irresponsible assertions against the presiding Judge of the Bench which had passed the interim order earlier. A different Bench which heard the matter on September 9, 2002 formed an opinion that the contents of the said affidavit were grossly contemptuous. The contemnor present in person was allowed an opportunity of withdrawing the allegations made so that the main matter could be heard and disposed of on merits. The contemnor unfortunately, and ill-advised as he seems to have been, did not avail the benefit of gesture shown by the Court and chose to stand by the allegations contained in the insinuating affidavit. The court formed an opinion that there was gross contempt committed in the presence of the Court and, therefore, directed action under S. 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to be initiated. The contemnor was taken into custody and directed to be lodged in Tihar Jail. Charges were directed to be framed so as to afford the contemnor an opportunity of defending himself. On 13-9-2002, the contemnor was ordered to be released on bail. The charge sheet was served on him whilst he was in custody. The contemnor filed a reply wherein he still chose to continue by the stand taken by him earlier and claimed a trial. Initially, he had expressed his desire for being heard by the Bench which took cognizance of the contempt. However, later he expressed his desire to be heard by another Bench. This is how the matter has been placed for hearing before us.