JUDGMENT :

KAMAL KHATA, J.

1. These Review Petitions seek a review of the order dated 20th April 2023 on common grounds and arguments and the Interim Applications (‘I.A.’ for short) connected therewith are for condonation of delay of about 17 days in filing the Review Petitions. We therefore dispose of these by a common order whilst referring to one of them being I.A. No. 2429 of 2023 linked with Review Petition No. of 2023 for brevity.

2. Considering there is a delay of only 17 days and with a view to grant a fair opportunity to the applicant seeking review we are inclined to use our discretion to condone it.

3. The Applicants seek a review on the ground that the order dated 20th April 2023 is ex facie replete with mistakes/errors as it disregarded relevant material fact placed on record by the applicant.

4. Dr. Chandrachud learned counsel for the Applicant at the outset, emphasized on the false statements made brazenly by the Respondent to obtain a restoration of the appeal which was apparently dismissed a long time ago in March 2014. According to him, the material facts and documents on record would establish the same beyond any manner of doubt. He submitted that it was inconceivable that the respondent was not aware of the orders passed by this Court from time to time more particularly the orders discharging his own surety and his own advocate who sought and was permitted to take a discharge till his family took a search of the proceeding after his arrest. On the contrary, the affidavit of service filed by the advocate for the surety and the service report filed by the office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master brought on record by the affidavit in reply clearly establish that the respondent was all along aware of all proceedings in court.

5. He submitted that the contention that the respondent had made false statements on oath, was admitted by the respondent in para 4(b) of his affidavit in rejoinder dated 7th February 2023, that was filed pursuant to the court order dated 14th February 2023. It is stated that the respondent had been informed by his advocate in July 2019 that he intended seeking a discharge and that there was correspondence with his advocate exchanged at that time. He submitted that despite having knowledge of all events and proceedings the respondent had failed to take any steps in the matter which could only be attributed to Respondent’s negligence.

6. The learned counsel took strong exception to the statement of the respondent that it was only after his arrest on 14th January 2023 that he had learnt of the order permitting discharge of his advocate. This according to the counsel was brazenly false as the respondent by a further affidavit dated 3rd March 2023 admitted that at all relevant times he had knowledge of the proceedings filed by Mr Mahesh Gupta (the brother of his brother in law Ashok Gupta) who had stood surety for him in the appeal.

7. Moreover, the respondent was convicted for committing civil contempt for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order. It was submitted that the respondent had admitted that by not filing a proper affidavit in 2007 he had been negligent and thus not purged the contempt. He submitted that these facts would in fact establish that the respondent was guilty of committing criminal contempt.

8. According to the learned counsel, the observation in paragraph 6 of the impugned order was made without any inquiry and without examining the documents regarding the removal of office objections that form a part of the record. Had this exercise been done, the conclusion would have been different. It is submitted that the Court erred in drawing a conclusion that the office objections were removed.

9. The learned Counsel asserted that the statements made by the other two applicants in I.A. No. 650 of 2023 and I.A. (L) No.1984 of 2023 that the office objections were not removed would clearly reveal that the respondent was guilty of continuing to make false and misleading statements.