COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. BANSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been referred to this Court for being treated as a Criminal Contempt on the request of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla. In the communication addressed to this Court, the learned Judge writes that Civil Suit No. 31 -1 of 2008, titled: Khalanga v. Gurdass was pending (which has not been transferred) in the Court of the learned Judge in which Shri Bansi Lal, Advocate, was representing the plaintiff. The suit instituted was for permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the suit land. The learned Judge writes that there were number of adjournments which had been granted in the case although it was a time bound and targeted case. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 and Order 18 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') being CMA No. 54 -6 of 2011, praying therein that inspection of the spot be carried out by a Local Commissioner to be appointed by the Court. This application was dismissed on 27.9.2011 as the Court did not feel any necessity to appoint a Commissioner. The Court also noticed that the sole defendant had died on 17.11.2009 and the suit could not continue as a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction could not have been passed against the deceased defendant. On 29.9.2011 an application under Section 151 CPC was instituted by the plaintiff which was registered as CMA No. 56 -6 of 2011 in which a prayer was made for allowing time to file revision petition against the order of dismissal of the first application (CMA No. 54 -6 of 2011) which rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner.

(2.) ON perusing the application, the Court noted that the facts pleaded were not correct and the language used was intemperate and contemptuous. Personal allegations were leveled against the Presiding Officer that the application for demarcation/appointment of Local Commissioner had been dismissed by the learned Court in an arbitrary manner, the Presiding Officer was biased and at the time of consideration of the application for appointment of the Local Commissioner no objection was raised by the opposite Counsel for appointment of a revenue expert in which eventuality the appointment should have been a matter of course. It was alleged that the learned Presiding Officer had dictated some part of the order which was thereafter changed and order of dismissal was recorded. This is obviously a serious allegation of fudging judicial record.

(3.) THE learned Presiding Officer then submits that on 1.10.2011, a reference has been made for institution of contempt proceedings which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court with the following directions: - -