PUKRAJ D JAIN Vs. GOPALAKRISHNA G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel representing the contesting parties and the learned Government Advocate for the State. It was on our direction that the petitioners' learned Advocate has impleaded the State as a formal party and carried out the formal amendment. Copies of the proceedings may be furnished to the learned Government Advocate subsequently.

(2.) THE charge against the accused in this case arises from the allegation that after the High Court finally disposed of the dispute relating to the premises which are the subject matter of this contempt proceeding that the contemnor took up the contention that the High Court order was an incorrect and non-est order and that consequently they are within their rights to reagitate the matter before the trial court. A suit was accordingly instituted and the complainant alleges that the institution of those proceedings constitute abuse of the legal process. The earlier Division Bench issued notice to the respondents who have appeared. Respondent No. 1 is an elderly Doctor and respondent No. 2 is his son who is a practicing Advocate. They are represented by their learned Advocate Sri. Tilgul. They have filed their reply in which various contentions have been adopted including the aspect of non-obtaining the sanction from the learned Advocate General and maintainability of proceedings etc. Had the proceeding been effectively contested we would have had to examine each of these contentions and record our findings. As the case now stands it is pointed out to us that on a reconsideration, the respondents have withdrawn the suit in question and it is also confirmed by the learned counsel that the decree passed by the court has been executed, that the possession has been obtained by the complainants and that the requisite payments have also been made. The submission is that the respondents have retraced their steps, they have also tendered an unconditional apology to the court and the basic plea put-forward is that there is no need to continue with the proceedings under these circumstances in so far as the respondents have made amends for their faults, that their apology be accepted, and the proceedings be closed.

(3.) WHILE opposing this submission, the petitioners' learned counsel vehemently submitted that various litigations have been pending between the parties, that the filing of the suit before the lower Court was totally unjustified and on the filing of the suit the act of contempt is complete and that they should not be allowed to get away by merely tendering an apology as this will create a dangerous precedent for the future as the Courts are virtually choked up with frivolous and vexatious litigations instituted with an oblique motive as in this case.