SURESH CHANDRA MUKHERJI Vs. BISWA NATH CHAKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 2, Contempt of Courts Act (Act 12 of 1926). The petitioners have obtained a rule upon the opposite parties to show cause why they should not be committed or otherwise dealt with according to law for contempt of Court inasmuch as during the pendency of Title Suit No. 46 of 1936 of the 2nd Court of the Munsif at Sealdah opposite parties Nos. 2 to 7 published a certain notice. Opposite party No. 1 presided over and opposite parties Nos. 2 to 7 and 9 and 10 took part in a meeting at which certain resolutions were passed. Opposite party No. 9, an employee of the plaintiff, who is opposite party No. 8, and opposite party No. 10, an added plaintiff in the suit, took part in circulating the notice and these proceedings are said to have been instigated by opposite party No. 8, the plaintiff, in whose interest they took place. Opposite party No. 1 caused an article, drafted by opposite party No. 2 and purporting to be a report of the proceedings of the meeting, to appear over his signature in the newspapers Advance and Ananda Bazar Patrika (Exs. C and D). It appears from the affidavit of the petitioners that the suit in question was instituted on 9 March 1936 purporting to be on behalf of the local public under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., for a declaration that certain land claimed by the petitioners was a public pathway and that an injunction was issued by the Court directing that the plaintiff and his tenants should not use the disputed path till the hearing of the suit. The notice Ex. B is as follows: The residents of Pottery Road, Hajra Bagan Lane, Kamardanga Road, Seal Lane, Convent Lane and Tengra Road are aware that the road adjoining the Bustee 7 Kamardanga Road and Hajrabagan Lane which has been and is being used by the general public from time immemorial is now under the risk of being closed. A meeting of the general public will be held at 5 p.m., on Sunday next, 27 June, at Pottery Road (the Barwari Durga Puja Maidan) for determining the course of action to be followed by residents of the quarter in order that the general public may use the said road in accordance with established usage. Srijukta Babu Biswanath Chakravarty B. L. Congress Secretary of Ward No. 19, will adorn the Presidential chair. The presence of the public is earnestly solicited. Sd. Amiya Ranjan Das Gupta, President, Congress Committee of Ward No. 14, B. K. Paul, B.Sc. Glasgow; and others.

(2.) The resolution of the meeting which is objected to, viz. Resolution No. 1, is as follows: On Sunday, the 27 day of June last, a public meeting of the residents of Pottery Road, Kamardanga Road, Hajrabagan Road of Entally and the neighbouring places was held at Kamardanga K.C. Girls High Sohool premises. 8j. Biswanath Chakravarty B. L. took the Presidential chair. A resolution was passed at the meeting protesting against the attempts of Sures Chandra Mukherjee and others to close up the road or land to the west of No. 7 Kamardanga Boad and adjoining Hajrabagan Lane which is being used by the general public for the past 40 or 50 years.

(3.) The article in Advance describes the resolution as protesting against the attempts of Babu S. C. Mukherjee and others to close the land in question which was being used by the public for the last 40 or 50 years openly and publicly. The other news. paper article (Ex. D) was similarly worded. The petitioners maintained that this was done in pursuance of a scheme to defeat justice and create prejudice against the defendants in the suit and that the notice of the meeting and the newspaper articles are in fact calculated to obstruct and interfere with the due course of justice and to prejudice mankind against these defendant petitioners before the case was heard and are thus in contempt of Court. In support of their contention the petitioners have referred to the case in In Re: William Thomas Shipping Co. (1930) 2. Ch 368 in which it was held that the publication of injurious misrepresentations concerning parties to proceedings in relation to those proceedings may amount to contempt of Court, because it may cause those parties to discontinue or to compromise, and because it may deter persons with good causes of action from coming to the Court, and is thus likely to affect the course of justice.