SYED AZIMUDIN Vs. SYED MAZHARUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been fined Rs. 1,000/-by N. S. Rafrnaswamy. J. In default of payment of that sum, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprison- ment for three months. The appellant has paid the fine.

(2.) IN this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel that the appellant has not been really guilty of contempt, in that he had not wilfully disobeyed any order of the court. It may be mentioned at this stage that the appellant was punished for contempt on the basis that he wilfully disobeyed the order of the court to produce the account books of the Wakf of which he was the Mutha-walli. A few more facts have to be stated to appreciate the contentions urged by his counsel at the time of the hearing of this appeal.

(3.) THERE was a suit for rendition of accounts which was numbered as C. S-No. 1 of 1965. The prayer in that suit against the appellant was only for rendition of accounts. Ismail, J. , considered that suit and found that the contentions of the parties comprehended issues wider than mere taking of accounts and, therefore, dismissed the suit with permission to the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit which is more comprehensive. The dismissal was in the year, 1968. In that suit, the appellant had produced the account books of the Wakf. It appears that the account books were taken away by his counsel on 6-11-1968. In the year, 1970, another suit C. Section 85 of 1970 was instituted for drawing up of the Scheme, for administration of the Trust, for taking accounts and for setting aside the alienations alleged to have been made by the Muthawalli, the appellant, and for other reliefs. In this suit, the appellant had been directed to produce his account books on a number of occasions. He not only did not produce the account books but also was not taking any active interest in defending the suit. Ultimately, warrant had to be issued for his arrest and thereafter he appeared in Court on 11-3-1976. It is not clear from the records before us as to what exactly transpired on that day. In the affidavit filed by the appellant on 19-7-1976 before the trial Judge, he merely stated that he appeared in Court on 11-3-1976, that his case was not in the list and that he was granted three weeks' time to produce the account books. However, the learned Judge stated in the order that the appellant asked for time to produce the account books, that he was granted three weeks' time and that even after the lapse of three weeks, he did not produce the account books. Thereafter, on action being taken on the basis that the appellant had committed contempt, the appellant filed an affidavit in which he stated that the acccount books were taken from the court by his then counsel Sri E. R. Krishna Iyer, that on enquiry made from the Advocate's Clerk, he learned that he (Advocate's Clerk) had entrusted the account books to the person who used to collect rents for the suit properties and that he was not in possession of the account books.