STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. MAHAVIR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before adverting to the series of applications filed by the respondent, a brief reference to the circumstances in which the case of Contempt was registered against him, appears necessary.

(2.) The respondent was appearing as an Advocate for the respondent in Writ Appeal No. 343/2006, which was decided by order dated 8th May, 2007. Not satisfied with the said decision, a Review Application under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed in which certain aspersions were cast and scurrilous allegations were made. It was pointed out in paragraph 4 of the said application by the Advocate that the review application was necessitated to point out the mistakes / errors / lapses committed by this Court in order to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court on that basis. In the Affidavit of the respondent contemner, in paragraph 4, had also stated that the review was filed so that the mistakes committed by this Court are not repeated and that the matter shall be reported to Hon'ble Chief Justice, if so advised by the petitioner, before the Special Leave Petition is filed before the Supreme Court. The review application had thus proceeded on the assumption that the decision rendered by this Court would not be in favour of the applicant seeking review and it would be necessary to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. In the order dated 22/06/2007, passed in the said M.C.C.No. 408/2007, the extracts from the Review Petition as also from the Affidavit of the Contemner were quoted verbatim.

(3.) In view of the said recalcitrant attitude of the Contemner, it was observed that the manner in which the statement had been made, it conveyed in no unmistakable terms that the Advocate was trying to over reach and intimidate this Court with a view to obtain a favourable order on the ground that else he would approach the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court of India in SLP. The approach of the counsel was not only deprecated but on account of the impertinence and impudence displayed and the resort of the learned counsel to motivated remarks with a view to over reach the Court and to prevail upon the Court to pass an order favourable to him, the proceedings of Contempt were initiated against the respondent contemner.