NANDKISHORE Vs. PRESIDENT, BABULAL BAHOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is being decided finally as a very short point stands for adjudication.

(2.) THE appellant had moved an application before the trial Court for taking an action against the respondent for committing the breach of the undertaking given by the respondent in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 55 -A/95 which was pending for hearing in the District Court, Indore. That application stood decided by 15th Addl. District Judge, Indore who decided M.C.A. 5/96 which was filed by the appellant in that context. In paragraph 11 of the order which is under challenge in this appeal, the learned Judge held that an undertaking was given by the respondent that he would not construct any construction on the suit land site. Learned Judge also held that the respondent did not do any construction; however, there was a gutter constructed by the respondent but that was for the purpose of draining out the water. In paragraph 12, learned Judge gave a warning to the respondent that he shall not do any construction in contravention of the undertaking given by him before the District Court. By giving such warning to the respondent the learned Judge disposed of said M.C.A. 5/96. That order is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(3.) THE Courts are interested in maintaining the rule of law, as well as the clean stream of administration of justice. The Courts are interested in seeing that orders of the Courts are obeyed by everyone. While dealing with the instances of the breach of undertaking or disobedience of the order of the Courts, the Courts have to come to situation on the merits of the facts of each and every case. The trifle breaches are not to be magnified and the persons, who are committing such breaches in good faith or on account of insufficiency of prior knowledge, are not to be treated severely. After all, vivid demarcation has to be found between intentional disobedience for the purpose of flouting the order of the Court and polluting the course of administration of justice and the acts committed innocently in good faith, or on account of want of proper legal knowledge, or on account of the proper legal advice. At that time, the physical condition of the alleged contemner, his financial condition and his social status has to be also considered. It has to be also considered as to in what capacity such an act has been committed by alleged contemner. The Courts are not interested in hitting everybody with a club so as to enforce the discipline of administration of justice. The subject is made to know what the law is and what is his duty so far as the maintenance of course of law. The alleged contemner is about 79 years of age as told by Shri Mahajan. He had performed the said act as a office bearer of M.P. Cloth Market Association. That has been done by him in his pursuit of a social service. There appears to be no personal interest of the alleged contemner. The warning which has been given by learned Judge is sufficient to meet the act which has been committed by the alleged contemner. There is no need of punishing him severely. The President shall not commit the breach of undertaking which has been given by him before the concerned Court. If at all something is to be constructed, it is necessary for the respondent to obtain the previous permission of concerned Court. The respondent should not be under false impression or under the forced air of his own assuming importance as a person engaged in social service. It appears from the arguments advanced by Shri Mahajan that respondent engaged in various social activities. Every social worker is supposed to do the social work and that too with low profile which is benevolent for the service of the society. There shall not be air of arrogance. For the kind of persons who are doing the social service, this is all what is necessary. Misc. Appeal stands dismissed at this stage. The appellant is hereby warned not to bring such trifle matters before the High Court and to waste the time of every concerned person. Let such persons be the note of alarm that such acts would be dealing with severely, if needed, because everybody is expected to think properly before approaching the Court for a legal remedy. Such persons should consider the merit of the matter before filing a lis in any Court, else such adventurous activities would be inviting appropriate punishment also.