Judgment

SARKARIA, J.:- This appeal by Rachapudi Subba Rao is directed against a judgment, dated April 23, 1975 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, whereby the appellant was convicted for committing gross contempt of court under Section 12 read with Sections 10 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo one months imprisonment. It arises out of these facts :

2. The appellant filed Original Suit No. 101 of 1973 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, against five persons for declaration of his title and for injunction in respect of a building. The 1st defendant in that suit instituted Original Suit No. 275 of 1972 in the same Court against the appellant for possession of the same building and for recovery of damages for use and occupation. The 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, heard the two suits together and by a common judgment, dated October 31, 1974, dismissed the appellants suit and decreed the suit of the then 1st defendant against him with costs. The decree-holder filed petition for execution of his decree against the appellant. The latter filed an application for stay of the execution.

3. When the execution and the appellants application for stay were pending, the appellant on December 25, 1974 issued notice to the Additional Subordinate Judge, who had decided the suits against him. In that notice which is a lengthy document, he inter alia made these allegations against the Judge :

"3. In the said judgment (0. S. Nos. 101/73 and 275/72) your honour created new facts by making third version without evidence as detailed below among others."

"4. Your honour has intentionally, with bad faith and maliciously, disordered the existing oral and documentary evidence with a view to help the plaintiff in O. S. N. 275/72 causing damage and injury to me."

"5. Your honour has maintained different standards in the same judgment with regard to Exs. B-9, B-10, B-13 and A-15 to A-19 and A-20 to A-22 and B-11 and B-12 in para No. 25."

"6. Your honour has maintained different standards even with regard to self-serving statements."

"16. Your honour has side-tracked the binding direct decisions of the High Courts and the SC disordering the contents of the said decisions."

"18. So under these circumstances it cannot be said that these acts done by your goodself in the discharge of your honours judicial duty within the limits of your honours jurisdiction in good faith; for the above said acts themselves prove that your honour has done these acts with mala fide exercise of powers without jurisdiction."

4. In the concluding paragraphs of the notice, he stated :

"Your honour has done these acts in excess of jurisdiction knowing the law regarding your own powers and duties. So, your honour is liable in tort to pay damages for the heavy monetary loss incurred by me and for the injury.

Hence, I request your honour to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 by way of damages for the heavy monetary loss incurred by me and for the injury within a reasonable time, or else I will be compelled to seek legal redress for the same.

I hereby reserve my right to take available legal actions against your honour under the other enactments."

5. After receiving this notice, the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge sent it to the High Court for necessary action. The High Court requested the Advocate-General to institute contempt proceeding. The Advocate-General then filed a Contempt Petition No. 14 of 1975, supported by an affidavit and prayed that the appellant be committed for Contempt of Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge Vijayawada and be punished under Section 12 read with Sections 10 and 15 of the Act.

6. In his counter-affidavit filed before the High Court, the appellant not only tried to justify the issuance of the notice to the Subordinate Judge, but also asserted that the notice was intended to uphold the purity of administration of justice and to safeguard the interests of the litigating public.