IN RE DASHRATH CHAND SINGHVI Vs. ABC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule was issued by a Division Bench of this Court on April 30, 1981 to Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi, contemner, as to why he should not be punished for Contempt of Court in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 324 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules.

(2.) The aforesaid notice was issued to the contemner in these circumstances : In Civil Suit No. 45 of 1980. Dashrath Chand Singhvi Vs. Chief Accounts Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others , an order was passed by the trial court on Feb. 13, 1981 under which, the case was adjourned to Feb. 27, 1981 on the application of defendant No. 5 for setting aside the ex-parte order passed earlier and on the application of defendant Nos. 5, 9 and 10 to adjourn the case for engaging a lawyer. A revision petition was tiled against the aforesaid order in this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Revision No. 98 of 1981. A learned Single Judge of this Court (M.C. Jain, J.) under his order dated March 2, 1981, mentioning the grievance of Dashrath Chand Singhvi before him that there was no ground for the adjournment granted by trial court, dismissed the revision petition summarily. It appears that on Feb. 27, 1981, the trial court allowed both the applications : one of defendants Nos. 5, 9 and 10 for engaging a lawyer and the other of defendant No. 5 for setting aside the ex-parte order on payment of Rs. 15.00 as costs to the plaintiff, A revision petition was filed against the aforesaid order in this Court by Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi and the same was registered as revision petition No. 145 of 1981. In the grounds of the revision (Para 6), he made the following allegations:-

(3.) On 15.1.1982, Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi, the contemner, was present. We heard him. He raised an objection that the service of the notice has not been effected properly and be has not received a copy of the notice. We asked the contemner to explain the allegations made by him against the Munsif and a Judge of this Court (Mr. Justice M.C. Jain) but the contemner refused to say anything on merits and repeated that he should be allowed time to file reply to the notice and a copy of the notice should be given to him.