UMA DUTT Vs. R K SARDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, the respondent has prayed that the judgment debtor appellant Uma Datt be called up to show cause why be should not be prosecuted in trying to mislead this Court by concealment of material facts in his application Civil Misc No. 195 of 1967 dated l1th January, 1967. The application is ingenious and indeed it obviously has been inspired by a desire to put pressure on the opposite party. In the heading of the application, it is stated to have been filed under section 151, Civil Procedure Code and under sections 193, Indian Penal Code and 476, Criminal Procedure Code, but is obvious that the application (C.Misc. 196 of 1967) was neither verified by Uma Datt, nor is there any affidavit which has been suggested to be the basis for the prosecution for whch the respondent wants to canvass. During the course of arguments, however the learned counsel for the respondent has only tried to make out a case for initiating proceedings for contempt of Court.

(2.) Contempt of Court, it must never be forgotten, is a summary and a drastic process which this Court is very slow to resort to, except in cases of gross affront to the dignity of the Court or in cases where the judicial process has been sought intentionally to be seriously interfered with illegally It is resorted to only in the interest of the sanctity of the judicial process and the dignity and majesty of the Court of justice and not merely because a private party to a litigation, feeling aggrieved, sfems to be inspired by a desire to settle his own scores with his opponert through contempt proceedings. It is undoubtedly true that in Courts in this country, litigants seldom show that respect for truth which they art expected to: and which they may be inclined, as a rule, to show outside the Courts. In fact, their general attitude is that everything, however foul, is fair in litigation It is a matter of disappointment to this Court that this should be so. This observation, however, goes for most of the litigating parties and merely because one of them chooses to approach this Court with a prayer to proceed against its opponent for for the latter's indiscretion in making statements which may be wrong and misleading this Court is not bound, without something much more, to initiate proceedings by way of contempt of Court. This certainly does not mean that this Court approves of such an attitude of mind on the part of the litigants. The wide sweep of the power of this Court in proceedings by way of contempt, demands a proper self-imposed restraint consistent with its majesty and dignity because such generosity of attitude alone can advance the larger interests of justice. To permit this power to be invoked too frequently and too lightly merely because a litigating party is alleged and even proved to have made misleading or false asseitions in an application, may not fuither the end, the contempt pro ceedings are d signed ti serve and promote Dignified restraint and magnanimous in attention t the usual shortcomings of an average litigant, who dees not possess a genuine high sense of regard for truth, and who takes misleading and untrue picas in his answer to the opponent's case, seems to me to truly befit the high position of power this Court holds. Too frequent action lightly taken for contempt of Court on the basis of every incorrect plea in the pleadings tends to defeat its own purpose By and large, it is only when there appears a glaring case of deliberate and intentional interference with the purity and free flow of the stream of justice, by doing something Prima facie indefensible and incapable of intelligible explanation, that this Court would be justified in considering the question of initiating contempt proceedings, and ordinarily this Court would be disinclined to allow its inherent power to punish for contempt of Court to be invoked at the instance of a party on the mere ground that his opponent has raised incorrect or even false pleas.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons. I reject this application bat in the peculiar circumstances, make no order as to costs.