Disobedience of a court order without knowledge of the order from an authorized or authentic source does not amount to contempt of court.

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : In this appeal by special leave, the appellant who has been found guilty of contempt of court by the High Court of Orissa in challenging his conviction. To this appeal, as well as to Criminal Appeal 2 to 1960 in which another person is challenging his conviction for contempt of court by the same High Court, the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court have been made parties. The learned Additional Solicitor-General who has put in an appearance for a limited purpose has raised a point that in such matters it is not at all necessary to make the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court parties. He points out that in England in all contempt matters the usual title of the proceeding is "in re.......(so and so)," that is, the person who is proceeded against for contempt. The same practice, according to him, is followed in appeals. We must, however, point out that in appeals preferred to the Privy Council from convictions for contempt by the High Court in India as well as in appeals before this Court, the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court concerned have been made respondents. In Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad Tobago, 1936 AC 322 we find that the Attorney-General was made a party to the appeal. The question raised by the learned Additional Solicitor-General is of some importance and we think it desirable to decide it.

2. In every suit or appeal persons who claim relief or against who relief has been given or persons who have or who claim the right to be heard must undoubtedly be made parties. That is because they have an interest in the decision or the result of that case. But where Judges of a High Court try a person for contempt and convict him they merely decide a matter and cannot be said to be interested in any way in the ultimate result in the sense in which a litigant is interested. The decision of Judges given in a contempt matter is like any other decision of those Judges, that is, in matters which come up before them by way of suit, petition, appeal or reference. Since this is the real position we think that there is no warrant for the practice which is in vogue in India today, and which has been in vogue for over a century, of making the Chief Justice and Judges parties to an appeal against the decision of a High Court in a contempt matter. We may point out that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to make the Chief Justice and the Judges of a High Court parties to a legal proceeding unless some relief is claimed against them. In a contempt matter there is no question of a relief being claimed against the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court. The present practice should, therefore, be discontinued and instead, as in England, the title of such proceedings should be "In re........(the alleged contemner).

3. Now we address ourselves to the merits of this case. The appellant was a Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Dhenkanal in the year 1957. In a criminal matter before him a Magistrate III class, Dhenkanal passed an order under; S. 522, Criminal Procedure Code putting the complainant, one Golam Mohammed in possession of some property. The order was actually executed on October 14, 1955. It was also confirmed by the Additional District Magistrate in appeal. it was, however, set aside by the High Court in revision on August 27, 1957. The opposite party, one Sarif Beg, thereupon made an application on November 20, 1957, before the appellant for redelivery of possession. This application was opposed by Golam Mohammad. It was heard by the appellant on November 21, 1957, and order was reserved till November 23, 1957. Apparently the order was not ready and so the matter was adjourned to November 27, 1957. That day the application was allowed and compliance was directed by December 2, 1957.

4. While these proceedings were going on, an application was made by the complainant to the High Court apparently for a review of its previous order. By order dated November 23, 1957, th