SURESH KR JAIN Vs. TIRTHA NATH SAIKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt proceeding against the opposite party was initiated by this court for violation of the order dated 24.7.89 passed in First Appeal No. 23 of 1987.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that the opposite party issued notice to the landlord on the prayer of the tenant for consideration of the claim of the tenant and fixed 4.7.89 for consideration of the matter. Accordingly, the parties appeared on 4.7.89 and submitted their respective submissions and the matter was fixed on 25.7.89. The appellant petitioner objected to the apportionment insofar as it related to the enhanced portion of the award. After hearing the parties and on examination of records the opposite party rejected the prayer of the appellant petitioners. The opposite party knew that the appellant-petitioner has filed an appeal against the order passed by the reference court and a copy of the order dated 31.3.89 passed by this court was also placed and perused by the opposite party. The petitioners were asked to produce stay order, if any, by 25.7.89. On 25.7.89 an application was filed by the counsel for the appellant petitioner praying for ailowing time for submission of document or orders wherein it was stated that the stay Petition in the said F.A. No. 23/87 would be heard after appearance of the respondent. It was further mentioned in the said application that this court by order dated 24.7.89 directed the Collector to deposit the enhanced award amount in the court of Asstt. District Judge No. 2 instead of disbursement. The said application was not supported by any affidavit. Even the typed copy of 'the order passed by the court on 24,7.89 was not submitted. Finding no valid reason to stay the payment of the awarded sum in favour of the tenant and considering the hardship of the tenant,the opposite party directed to pay the amount apportioned in favour of the tenant on execution of an indemnity bond. Accordingly, an indemnity bond duly signed by Shri Harmohan Kumar was accepted by the opposite party who issued the refund voucher for Rs. 43,972.37.

(3.) It is the contemners case that he found it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner and allowed to withdraw the amount by the tenant, that too on execution of an indemnity bond. There was no mala fide intention on the part of the opposite party. He further stated that the order passed by this court on 24.7.89 was not served on him and no authentic information about the passing ot the said order. The allegation that the opposite party deliberately and wilfully flouted the orders of this court has been denied by the opposite party. He further stated in his affidavit that had he been supplied with authentic information by submitting either verified copy of the order dated 24.7.89 passed by this courf or by filing an application supported by an affidavit or verification then he would not have allowed to withdraw the amount in question. The opposite party has also expressed his sincere regret for the same and has tendered unqualified apology