MANMOHAN SARIN, J.

( 1 ) THE present contempt proceedings have been initiated by the Court on its own motion, taking cognizance of the abuse of the legal process. Two recovery suits were filed on loan agreements by respondent/contemnor no. 1, where admittedly, the consideration in the manner as recorded in the agreements was not paid. Besides, the loan agreements were not executed on the dates recorded thereon, since the stamp paper on which they were engrossed, were of a later date. Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, show cause notices were issued to the plaintiff Kanwaljit S. Sareen and his Advocates Dr. Dewan C Vohra and Ms. Kiran Singh, for reasons as recorded in order dated 22nd April, 2004, for abuse of the legal process in the institution and prosecution of suits based on the said agreements.

( 2 ) IN these proceedings, the role of Advocates signing the plaint, containing averments, which were false to their knowledge and contrary to the specific stand taken in notice, signed by the same counsel vis-a-vis their role as officers of the Court comes up for consideration. The junior counsel, who signed the agreement as a witness, admits that the agreements were not executed and signed by the parties in her presence and that the other witness also did not sign in her presence. Yet, she signed the agreement as a witness on instructions of the senior counsel, who too, was not present at the time of signing the agreement.

( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to the present proceedings may be briefly noted:-

(i) Suit No. 621/1999 titled Kanwaljit S. Sareen Vs National Builders properties and Ors was filed by the plaintiff acting through his father and attorney, Sh. S. S. Sareen for recovery of Rs. 10,05,000/ -. Plaint was signed by counsel, Dr Dewan C. Vohra and Ms Kiran Singh, Advocates. Plaintiff averred that he had lent a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the Defendants on 15. 5. 1997 at an agreed rate of interest of 3% per month and a loan agreement on a stamp paper was signed. On failure of the Defendants to pay the amount, plaintiff instituted the suit, the cause of action is claimed to have arisen on 15. 5. 1997, when the amount was lent to the defendants.

(ii) An application under section 340 Cr. P. C. bearing Crl. M. No. 610/2003, was moved by the Defendants claiming that the Plaintiff had forged and fabricated loan agreement for institution of the suit. The loan agreement was dated 15. 5. 1997 and was notarized on the same date. However, the non judicial stamp paper on which the agreement was engrossed is dated 21. 7. 1997. Notice of this application was issued to the plaintiff and reply thereto was filed praying for dismissal of the application and also permission to withdraw the suit.

(iii) Plaintiff had filed another Suit bearing No. 1357/99 for recovery of Rs. 21 lakhs being the principal amount plus interest, against the Defendants. The said suit had also been filed by the Plaintiff through his father and his attorney, sh. S. S. Sareen and signed by Advocates, Dr. Dewan C. Vohra and Ms. Kiran Singh. As per the averments in Suit No. 1357/1999, plaintiff lent a sum of rs. 16,00,000/-to the defendants, who were known to the plaintiff's father, on 1. 7. 1997. A loan agreement was executed on a stamp paper between the parties, duly notarized for the loan of Rs. 16 lakhs. The defendants agreed to pay a total interest of Rs. 5 lacs by agreeing to pay the total amount of Rs. 21 lacs under four equal instalments of Rs. 5. 25 lacs each. The first instalment being payable on 1. 1. 1998 followed by the remaining three instalments on 1. 4. 1998, 1. 7. 19998 and 1. 10. 1998. The agreement recorded the amount of loan as having been paid in new Delhi. Based on the above averments, a decree for recovery of Rs. 21 lakhs was sought.

(iv) Written statement was filed by the defendants in both suits, denying the execution of the loan agreements. The defendants averred that no such loan agreements were e