ISWAR NITTO GOPAL JEW Vs. ANGUR BALA MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for committal of Angur Bala Mullick for contempt of court. It is alleged in the petition that after the suit was filed in the month of November 1963, Mr. P. N. Chowdhury, a member of the Bar, was appointed Receiver and also a Special referee to take accounts. It appears that the Special Referee made orders requiring the parties to file their respective statements. It is said on behalf of the petitioner that the respondant did not file statements. The matter is within the province of the special Referee. He should proceed in accordance with the order and if any party is at default, the Special Referee will proceed in accordance with law. I do not wish to express any opinion as to how the Special Referee is to conduct the reference. All that I need say is that this is a matter which should be brought to a speedy conclusion.

(2.) MR. Advocate-General contended that the order was not served and therefore there could not be any application for contempt. In my opinion the contention is sound and correct. Mr. Banerjee, counsel for the petitioner; wanted to refer to an application dated the 3rd June 1964 and to extract from that petition certain statements which would show that the respondent was aware of the orders. That petition is not in evidence. This is a proceeding in contempt. No evidence can be used against the respondent in this matter. I am, therefore, unable to hold that there has been any personal service of the order upon which the application for contempt is founded.

(3.) THE Referee should proceed in the light of the observations made above.