URMILA DEVI Vs. AJIT KUMAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 20.3.99 whereby the petition of the revisionists to draw up a contempt proceeding against Ajit Kumar Rai and some other persons who were mortgagee from the vendor of the revisionists was rejected.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the revisionists purchased certain lands over which there was mortgage and some of the opposite parties of this revision were the mortgagee. A Miscellaneous case was filed under section 83 of the T.P. Act after the revisionists purchased the land from concerned bank and they deposited the mortgaged money in court. The mortgaged money was withdrawn by the mortgagee and they entered into a compromise as a result of which, delivery of possession of the land under mortgage was effected. However, the mortgagees filed a petition in the court making an endorsement that they were submitting the two mortgaged deeds. However, only one mortgaged deed was filed and the other was not filed. Hence, the petition was filed by the revisionists to draw up a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for making a false statement in court. One lawyer namely, Dhirendra Kumar was also noticed and he was discharged by the lower court on the ground that his signature did not appear on the. petition for vouchsafing for the filing of the concerned documents.

(3.) I think the learned lower courts misdirected himself by directing the revisionists to proceed under Order 34 of the C.P.C. This order was not at all relevant in the Misc. case which was registered for proceeding against the opposite parties for contempt of court. When there was written statement in court regarding the filing of the mortgaged deed which transpired to be false, it was the bounden duty of the court to enquire into the matter and proceed against the concerned person for making false statement in a court of law. The learned lower court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.