SHYAM SUNDAR HALWASIYA Vs. JODHRAJ HALWASIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order made by Edgley J. on 3-7-1947, by which the present appellant, who was the plaintiff in a civil suit, has been committed to prison for contempt of Court and further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 400. The facts so far as are material for our present purposes may be shortly stated as follows:

(2.) The appellant Shyam Sunder Halwasiya brought a civil suit against Seth Jodhraj Halwaisya in the Original Side of this Court which was registered as suit No. 1227 of 1946 and the suit came up for hearing before Edgley J. on 23-6-1947. On the afternoon of 24-6-1947, the plaintiff, who had examined himself as a witness in this case, was under cross examination by the defendant's counsel and before the cross-examination was finished the case was adjourned till the day following, It appears that one Gajanand Chamaria was instructing the defendant's counsel while ho was cross-examining the plaintiff, and it is said that the defendant requested Gajanand to depose in the suit in his favour. After the hearing of the case was adjourned, the plaintiff left the court room before Gajanand and defendant and he waited at the veranda which is immediately outside the northern wall of the room. As soon as Gajanand came out and stepped into the veranda the plaintiff, it is said, seized him by the throat and abused him threatening to kill him if he would dare depose in the suit against him. Edgley J., was still in court room hearing another matter and Gajanand through a learned counsel brought this incident to the notice of the learned Judge, who directed him to put in a formal petition. The petition was filed on 25 June and a rule was issued calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court. The plaintiff appeared to show cause on 26-0-1947 and offered an unqualified apology through his counsel. Having regard to the seriousness of the charge, Edgloy J., thought that an enquiry should be held and thereupon affidavits were filed and the deponents were verbally examined in Court. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had actually abused and assaulted Gajanand on 24-6-1947, and he did so in order to intimidate him and to interfere with proper administration of justice. On these findings the learned Judge directed the appellant to be committed to prison for a period of two weeks and in addition to that pay a fine of Rs. 400. It is against this judgment that the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection challenging the competency of the appeal. It has been contended that the order passed by a single Judge of this Court in exercise of criminal jurisdiction cannot be challenged by way of appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The point is an important one and as it appears not to have been considered in any other previous decision of this Court we deem it necessary to examine the matter carefully.