MOHD. SHAMIM Vs. SHAHNAWAZ KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide orders dated 21.5.12 show cause notice was issued to the decree-holder Mohd.Shamim as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. Instead of filing any reply to the show cause notice the DH has filed his affidavit. In his affidavit he has tendered unconditional apology for inadvertently hurting the dignity of this court. Decree-holder in his affidavit has for the first time unequivocally admitted that compromise was entered into between him and the Judgment debtor and an amount of Rs. 1 lac was paid to him. The decree-holder has further deposed that the statement made by him in the mosque in the presence of independent public witnesses was the true and correct statement and the statements made by him in court before and after the statement made by him in the mosque are incorrect. The said affidavit filed by the DH is a clear admission of guilt on his part of giving a false statement on oath not once but twice in the court. Under what circumstances this court directed initiation of contempt proceedings against the DH, narration of facts as already detailed by this court in its order dated 21.5.2012 would be relevant and the same are reproduced as under:-

(2.) As would be seen from the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the decree-holder Mohd.Shamim had the audacity to deny the existence of the compromise between him and the judgment debtor and also the execution of the receipt dated 8.3.2012 not only once but twice after being administered oath to speak truth after swearing in the name of God. Both the decree holder and the judgment debtor being followers of the Islam religion stoutly claimed that they were even ready to swear on their holy book 'Quran Sharif' to support their respective stance. Both the parties had entered the witness box on 29.3.2012 to take a truthful stand with regard to the compromise and execution of receipt dated 8.3.2012. The decree-holder dauntlessly and adamantly denied any such compromise entered into by him with the judgment debtor or signing of any receipt dated 8.3.2012. The decree holder even went to the extent of suggesting that somebody has forged his signatures on the original receipt. He also denied having received amount of Rs. 1 lac from the judgment debtor and he also showed his ignorance as to who had written the said receipt. He also boldly stated that he can swear upon the Holy Book 'Quran Sharif' that the said compromise was not entered into between him and the judgment debtor . JD also entered the witness box and in his deposition he deposed about the compromise entered into between him and DH. He also deposed that receipt dated 8.3.2012 was reduced into writing by one Alam Khan Advocate who was accompanying Mohd.Shamim. He also deposed that a sum of Rs. 1lac was paid by him to Mohd.Shamim out of the total settled amount of Rs. 5 lacs. He also deposed that the said receipt was signed by Mohd.Shamim in his presence and in the presence of Mr.Alam Khan, Mr.Zahangir and Mr.Arab Shah. He also identified the signatures of Mohd.Shamim on the said receipt dated 8.3.2012. He also with all fairness stated that he could swear upon the Holy Book Quran Sharif that the said compromise was entered into between him and Mohd.Shamim.

(3.) The role of a judge in the system of dispensation of justice is not to sit as an umpire between two parties and declare at the end of the combat who has won and who has lost but to play an effective role in the proceedings in finding the truth and administering justice. This court was astounded and at the same time perplexed in the peculiar situation as both the parties could not be stating the truth and one of them was certainly playing fraud upon the dignity and majesty of the court. This court thus heeded to the proffer of the decree holder and the judgment debtor and resorted to the unusual step to allow both the parties to go to a nearby mosque to swear upon the holy 'Quran Sharif' and then take a categorical position with regard to their respective stands, in the wake to ascertain the truth. The two Local Commissioners appointed by this court in their report unanimously held that the D.H. had admitted the said compromise and D.H. was thus found to be not truthful when making a statement before this court. As would be seen from the aforesaid order dated 21.5.2012 Mohd.Shamim was again directed to enter the witness box to take a truthful position but having scant regard for the court and intrepid of the consequences that could ensue Mohd.Shamim again stuck to his previous stand and again denied the existence of the compromise and execution of receipt dated 8.3.2012, although in the later part of the statement he made a vain attempt to improve upon his statement.