SATGURU SHARNANAND Vs. SHIV KAILASH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this contempt petition against Sri Shiv Kallash Pandey, the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, alleging that he had heard the arguments in four revisions on 22nd September, 1989 and had fixed 26th September, 1989, for delivery of judgment, in all four cases. It is alleged that a transfer application was prepared on 25th September, 1989 and was presented in the office of the District Judge, Varanasi. Since the Courts closed half day due to reference on death of an Advocate, the said application was ordered to be put up on 26th September, 1989 as first case. On 26th September, 1989, the District Judge, Varanasi, stayed delivery of judgment and despite the communication of this order by the learned counsel for the applicant, the opposite party signed it. In paragraph 14 of the application, it has been alleged that the opposite party granted to the learned counsel for the applicant ten minutes time to bring the stay order, as the judgments had been signed by him, and that after the stay order was produced before him, he postponed the formal delivery of judgment and kept them in sealed covers. It is stated that subsequently the transfer application was allowed. It has been alleged that the judgments are duly written and signed only after formal reading and that the aforesaid acts committed by the judicial officer amount to contempt of a Court.

(2.) Notices were issued on 20.10.1989 and in reply the opposite party Sri Shiv Kailash Pandey, the then Xth Additional District Judge, Varanasi, has filed a counter-affidavit stating that he had heard the arguments on 21st September, 1989, which were concluded on 22nd September, 1989 and thereafter fixed 26th September, 1989 for delivery of judgments. On 23rd September, 1989, he was on leave. On 24th September, 1989, 3/4th order was dictated and the remaining part was dictated on 25th September, 1989 in Chambers simply because the lawyers were not working in the Court. He has denied that on 26th September. 1989, any counsel approached him in his chambers. The District Judge, Varanasi, had only stayed the delivery of judgment. In paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit, the opposite party has stated that the judgment or order is signed and dated in accordance with the provisions of Order XX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the time of pronouncement, it is signed and dated and then pronounced in open Court and thereafter a certificate to that fact is also given on the face of the judgment. The judgment is read out only after signing it and thereafter the certificate stating that the judgment is signed, dated and pronounced in the open Court is given. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the District Judge has stayed the delivery of judgment, and that stay order was complied with and, therefore, there is absolutely no case of disobedience or flouting of order.

(3.) I have heard Sri B. N. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the applicant at a great length and Sri Chandra Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. I have also perused the record of the case and the relevant provisions.