Back
2008 Supreme(AP) 951
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY
IN RE…. P. Nagesh & Others
Suo Motu Contempt Case No. 1095 of 2006 in ASMP. No. 2352 in ASMP No. 16220 of 2004 and ASMP No. 2353 of 2005 in ASMP. No. 16221 of 2004 and ASMP. No. 1893 of 2005 in AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001
DECIDED ON : 07-11-2008
For the Petitioner: Y. Chandrasekhar, SPl. G.P.
For the Respondent:R1 & R5, C. Prakash Reddy, R6 & R9, C. Sindhu Kumari, R8, P. Bhaktavatsal (Party in person), R7, T. Sundhakar Reddy, R10, N. Vidya Prasad, R11 & 12 O. Manohar Reddy, R13, S.R. Sanku, Advocates.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code 1908- Section 96- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971- Sections 10 read with 2 (C) and 15 - Rule 5(a) - Contempt case – Appeal - Suit for specific performance of agreement – Defendants remained ex-parte – Trial Court, while holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled for a decree for the relief of specific performance, however, decreed the suit for refund of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum and rejected the relief of specific performance - appeal papers were represented along with three applications i.e., for dispensing with filing of the certified copy of the judgment and decree for condonation of the delay of 1139 days in representing the appeal and for condoning delay of 150 days in filing the appeal – Held, Before parting with the case, it is considered necessary to observe that the whole incident has exposed certain shortcomings and deficiencies in the administrative mechanism pertaining to filing and return of the papers requiring necessary remedial measures to be taken for plugging the loopholes. The way in which the whole system is taken for a ride by the machinations of a single individual, exposes the vulnerability of the system itself apart from the human failures on the part of those concerned operating the system. In that context, the following suggestions are considered relevant and appropriate - Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and especially in view of the findings under Sections 10 read with 2 (C) and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 5(a) of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980 and in view of the seriousness of the offence, it is not a case of mere disobedience of an order of Court and it is virtually committing fraud on the institution i.e., the High Court Administration which is quite serious in nature on the face of it - In the circumstances, we impose the punishment of simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) against respondent No. 10-Sri M.S. Narayana. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month - The Registrar Judicial shall take steps to execute the order.
G.V. Seethapathy, J.
This contempt case was suo motu registered as per the directions of this Court contained in the order dated 27.09.2006 in A.S.M.P. No. 1893 of 2005 AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001.
2. The factual background that led to this suo motu contempt case can be briefly stated thus:
An appeal is purported to have been filed under Section 96 CPC on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 herein against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2000 in OS No. 18 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy district. The said appeal purported to carry AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001. The respondents 1 to 5 herein filed the said suit for specific performance of agreement dated 28.07.1987. The defendants remained ex-parte. The trial Court, while holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled for a decree for the relief of specific performance, however, decreed the suit for refund of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum and rejected the relief of specific performance. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 to 5 herein filed an appeal before this Court, which was purported to carry AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001. The appeal papers were returned on 25.6.2001. Subsequently, in the year 2004, appeal papers were represented along with three applications i.e., AS MP No. 16221 of 2004 for dispensing with filing of the certified copy of the judgment and decree, AS MP No. 16220 of 2004 for condonation of the delay of 1139 days in representing the appeal and AS MP No. 16219 of 2004 for condoning delay of 150 days in filing the appeal.
3. On 30.12.2004, a Division Bench of this Court ordered AS MP No. 16221 of 2004 dispensing with filing of the certified copy of the judgment and decree for the time being. AS MP No. 16220 of 2004 was also ordered, condoning the delay of 1139 days in representing AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001, in AS MP No. 16219 of 2004 notice was ordered to the respondents.
4. After appearance of the respondents therein, they filed AS MP Nos.2352 and 2353 of 2005 for recall of the orders passed on 30.12.2004. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications in AS MP Nos. 2352 and 2353 of 2005, it was alleged that no appeal was filed by the appellants till 08.09.2004 and the appellants have surreptitiously made use of some other docket in CRP (SR) No. 41417 of 2001 which was in fact, filed against the judgment and decree in OP No. 359 of 2000 on the file of the District Court, Nellore by another counsel Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy and the appellants herein have tampered with the said docket or CRP (SR) No. 41417 of 2001 and made corrections with white fluid ink at various stages like, Place, District, Case Number, the Court Name, counsel Name etc. so as to make it appear as if it was AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001 and no permission was taken for filing the appeal papers with deficit court fee and therefore, apart from there being no valid or proper presentation of the appeal, the appellants have played fraud on the Court by tampering and misusing the docket of some other case i.e., CRP (SR) No. 41417 of 2001 and making it to appear as if an appeal was filed with AS (SR) No. 41417 of 2001. This Court, having regard to the serious nature of the allegations made that warrants an enquiry and verification, directed the Registrar (Judicial) by order dated 28.11.2005 to conduct a comprehensive enquiry in to the matter.
5. The Registrar (Judicial) after due enquiry, submitted a report with the following conclusion:
“…….. From the above narration, it is seen that CRP SR No. 41417 of 2001 was initially filed by Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, Advocate, which was returned with certain objections on 25.06.2001 by the Scrutiny Officer. The Return Register also reflects that CRP SR No. 41417 of 2001 was returned and there is no AS SR No. 41417 of 2001 according to the official register. The case was represented again after compliance of the objections on 07.09.2004 and was allotted to Smt. C. Swarnalatha, Scrutiny Officer on 08.
