KRISHNA LULLA Vs. SHYAM AJWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hearing in extenso the petitioner in person who is also a practising advocate, we are unable to persuade ourselves to hold in his favour that a case has been made out for taking against the respondent action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

(2.) Embarrassing questions of a personal nature put in cross-examination to a witness in a judicial proceedings will not per se amount to contempt. The petitioner invited our attention to certain questions put in cross-examination of a witness in a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We cannot appreciate the tone and tenor of these questions or the relevance thereof to those proceedings. Courts must prevent vexatious cross-examination and overrule irrelevant questions. And if that is not so done, the aggrieved party is not without appropriate remedy. But action in contempt is not that remedy. We say no more. Indeed, we cannot, unless we travel beyond the parameters of these contempt proceedings. Threats of tax raids allegedly to deter a litigant from proceeding further with his legal/judicial proceedings would also not amount to contempt. Then again, annexing to a writ petition a copy of an order of discharge in criminal proceedings also cannot constitute contempt. The aforesaid were the acts cited and relied upon by the petitioner in support of his contention that the respondents were, because of these acts, guilty of contempt. However, none of these acts singularly or cumulatively justify action in contempt. The petitioner is, of course, at liberty to adopt appropriate remedy/remedies in that behalf. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to issue rule on this petition.

(3.) But from such limited facts and circumstances as have here come to our notice, we do feel inclined to observe albeit in passing, that this Courtss sympathy tilts, as at present, in favour of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the disputes and litigations such as reflected here are not an unknown feature of human life. Indeed, lawyers and judges in close nexus with courts and administration of justice will, cannot but help admit this. The petitioner and all others involved herein have thus to undergo the traumatic journey fighting their way to and for justice. However, in the context of the role of lawyers on whom the petitioner commented we can do no better than refer to the Supreme Court judgment in (E.S. Reddi v. The Chief Secretary, Government of A.P. and another) A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 1555 wherein quoting (Lord Raid in Rondel v. Worsley) (1967)3 All.E.R. 993, the following extracted observations therefrom are found in paragraph 11 of the Supreme Court judgment :