COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been made by the applicant, Sh. Sohan Singh under section 151 CPC with a prayer of modification/withdrawing the order dated 11. 12. 2008, and recalling the directions given to the applicant and other officials of the society to vacate the premises in the possession and stay/extend time period of working of the order dated 11. 12. 2008 till disposal of the application and discharge the contempt against the applicant by dismissing the Contempt Case No. 549/08.

(2.) ON 11. 12. 2008, the proceedings in the Contempt Case (C) No. 549/08 were going on in the Court. While the arguments were going on, Senior Counsel Shri K. T. S. Tulsi appearing for Sh. Sohan Singh submitted to the Court that Sohan Singh shall be vacating the premises in his occupation within two weeks. Since it was the property of the society, he shall hand over the possession of the premises to the receiver within a period of 2 weeks from the date of order. This Court also observed that other officials of the society in occupation of the property were bound to surrender the same to the receiver appointed by this Court to manage the property. The Court made it clear that the officials of the society can remain in occupation of the premises only with permission of the receiver, on terms and conditions regarding user charges that may be specified by the receiver. It is contended by the applicant that senior counsel for the applicant Sh. K. T. S. Tulsi made statement in the Court regarding handing over of possession of the property without his instructions. He was not required to give such a concession in the court nor there was an occasion to give concession. The application is accompanied by an affidavit of instructing counsel, Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah who has stated that he was present in the Court along with senior counsel sh. K. T. S. Tulsi during the hearing of the case. The senior counsel, Sh. K. T. S. Tulsi was engaged and briefed by him in the matter and senior counsel was never instructed by him to make a statement/submission/concession regarding handing over of possession of the property and instructions were given to the senior counsel only limited to the scope of Contempt Petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner argued that the instructing counsel was a responsible member of the bar and since he has filed his affidavit, the same should be given serious consideration and it should be believed that senior counsel (as if Senior Counsel was an irresponsible member of the bar) made concession without instructions and the order should be modified.