CHANNABASAPPA HONAKERAPPA BELALADAVAR Vs. S H BHIMAKKANAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questions of somewhat importance arise for our consideration and decision in this petition filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ("the Act").

(2.) Material facts giving rise to such questions are briefly these - The complainant in this petition is plaintiff in a suit pending before the Court of Munsiff at Haveri - a subordinate Court. The person arrayed as an accused in this petition is an Advocate who has filed vakalath for the defendants in that suit. The complainant filed an interlocutory application (I.A.) in that suit seeking from the subordinate Court an order of termination of the accused's vakalath which had been filed on behalf of the defendants therein. Two reasons given in support of such termination were - (i) Complainant's earlier consultation with the accused on matters involved in the suit; and (ii) Attestation by the accused of the signatures of deponents to affidavits filed in support of an other interlocutory application which had been filed in the suit at an earlier stage. The said I.A., which sought for termination of the accused's vakalath, was contested by the accused by means of a statement of objections filed thereto. Complainant's application for termination of the accused's vakalath filed for the defendants in the suit, it was alleged in that statement of objections, had been made at the instigation of his (complainant's) Advocate Sri S. R. Nilavagi. Professional jealousy and political rivalry existing between S. R. Nilavagi and the accused, the accused having appeared on behalf of the prosecution in a criminal proceeding before a Magistrate's Court in which Sri Nilavagi had been arrayed as an accused were stated to be the causes for such instigation. The complainant (plaintiff), who treated the contents of the accused's statement of objections as aspersions made against his Advocate Sri Nilavagi, being of the view that they constituted criminal contempt of subordinate Court, sought consent in writing of the Advocate General, as required under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S. 15 of the Act, for making a motion in the matter before this Court. The consent so sought from the Advocate General being refused, the complainant has filed the present petition before this Court purporting to be under S. 15(1) of the Act, the prayer therein being to initiate proceedings against the accused for criminal contempt of the subordinate Court finding that the contents of the statement of objections relating to instigation attributed to his Advocate Sri Nilavagi were aspersions made against him and they constituted criminal contempt of a subordinate Court. On the petition so filed by the complainant, the registry of this Court having raised an objection regarding its maintainability under S. 15(1) of the Act and a notice being ordered by this Court to the accused thereon, the accused has come to be represented by a learned Advocate of this Court. At the time the petition was listed for orders on the question of the maintainability of the petition, by consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, we heard them not only on the question of maintainability, but also on the question of initiating action on the accused for contempt of the subordinate Court on the basis of the contents in his statement of objections filed in the subordinate Court regarded by the complainant as aspersions on his Advocate.

(3.) The questions which, on the basis of the said facts and in the light of the arguments addressed before us by learned counsel appearing for the opposing parties arise for our consideration and decision may be formulated thus :