SUDIPTO SARKAR Vs. BARUN KUMAR CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein filed an application for removal of the petitioner from the guardianship of his minor daughter before the learned District Judge, Alipore and that petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 7 of 1997. In that Misc. Case, the petitioner also filed an application for further modification of the consent order dated 7.4.92 as modified on 6.4.93 to the effect that the respondent should be not permitted to meet the minor child more than once a month. The learned District Judge, Alipore disposed of the said application of the petitioner after hearing both the sides by his order No. 25 dated 30.7.97. The respondent was very much aggrieved by the said order of the learned District Judge but instead of taking recourse to legal remedies sent representations to the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Honourable Chief Justice of India, Honourable Acting Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court with a copy to learned District Judge, Alipore.

(2.) In that representation dated 10.9.97, the respondent levelled various allegations against the learned District Judge to the effect that "the consent was neither given nor can be ascribed to him by any prudent person", that he has a feeling that he "shall not get Justice from the judiciary though his Lawyers were of the view that this could be set right from the Higher Courts or some other Courts or transfer of the case", that the learned District Judge "has created a gap which cannot be compensated by any other means and that this is how the judiciary is doing out injustice to him and that he has grave doubts as to whether Justice would at all be done in this case". On 19.12.97 by his order No. 31, the learned District Judge directed to the learned Lawyer-respondent to clarify the stand taken by his client in the light of the letters on record but by an order No. 33 dated 23.2.98, the case was transferred to the 7th Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore by the successor District Judge. The Misc. Case was registered afresh as Misc. Case No. 9/98 in the transferee Court. The transferee Addl. District Judge, 7th Court by his order No. 35 dated 4.4.98 directed that the clarification as sought for by the learned District Judge in view of the conduct of the petitioner must be brought on record being supported by an affidavit whereupon this Court shall consider if such clarification of the petitioner would be acceptable or not. The matter ultimately came up for hearing before his successor Sri S.K. Bhadra, Addl. District Judge, Alipore on 21.8.99 when the peremptory hearing of the Misc. Case No. 9/98 was taken up. An application for drawing up contempt proceedings against the respondent herein was filed by the petitioner. It was urged on his behalf that this application should be heard first before the learned Court proceeded with the petition for revocation of guardianship and other applications filed therein. The petitioner herein also filed another application challenging the maintainability of the revocation application. The respondent herein also filed an application for amendment of the revocation application. The learned Addl. District Judge was, therefore, confronted with the question whether the representation along with the clarification by an affidavit filed on behalf of the alleged contemner should be considered in terms of order dated 4.4.98 before proceeding with the main application for revocation.

(3.) The learned Court answered the question by holding as under:-