IMPORTANT POINT
A member of the legal profession must act with integrity and responsibility, and allegations of contempt must be substantiated by clear evidence of willful disobedience to a court order; frivolous contempt petitions can lead to penalties.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

This Court is called upon to perform the unfortunate task of answering allegations of contempt against i). a judicial officer, ii). the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and iii). plaintiff nos.1 and 3 on rather strange, weird and specious grounds. Curiously, the petitioner herein is the Counsel appearing for defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.838/2018, of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit' for brevity). The instant proceeding, being a clear abuse of the process of the court, as would be unfurled by the following facts and discussion, is a matter of serious concern. The petitioner - supposedly a responsible member of the legal profession and an important stakeholder in the dispensation of justice to the parties before the court - has stooped down to the extent of hurling unfounded and wanton allegations of contempt, not only against a judicial officer, but also against his own counter part appearing for the plaintiffs, a clear aberration to the fraternity and comity expected to be maintained between the members of the legal profession.

2. Initially, a defect was noted by the Registry as to whether it is proper to array a judicial officer and the counsel for the parties as contemners in this proceedings. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled, this Court queried to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is serious in prosecuting this Contempt Case, to which query, an emphatic affirmation was the answer. In view of Section 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which deals with contempt by Judge, Magistrate etc., this Court directed the contempt case to be numbered. It was so done and the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard in extenso, as regards the maintainability and entertainability of the contempt petition, as also, the mode and manner in which contempt is sought to be alleged against the respondents/ alleged contemners.

3. On maintainability, Sri.Vadakara V.V.N.Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner would heavily rely on a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.K.Sarkar v. Vinay Chandra Misra [(1981) 1 SCC 436], to point out that the High Court has ample power under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act to initiate contempt action suo motu on the application of a private person, not being the Advocate-General. Learned counsel argued that, if such private person is a 'responsible member of the legal profession', the Court should act suo motu, as has been specifically held by the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph no.19 of S.K.Sarkar (supra). Emphasis was given to the fact that the petitioner herein is the counsel appearing for the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, wherefore it is imperative for this Court to initiate contempt, suo motu. S.K.Sarkar (supra) was subsequently followed by a three Judges bench in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat and others and connected matters [AIR 1991 SCC 2176]. On the basis of the said two decisions, the instant contempt case is quite maintainable, especially when it is filed by the petitioner, 'a responsible member of the legal profession', is the argument advanced.

4. On facts, the contempt is sought to be alleged in the following manner:

The suit is one for partition, after adjudging a Will dated 25.10.1991 as null, void and illegal. The matter reached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution at the instance of defendants 1 and 2 challenging two orders passed by the learned Munsiff; the first being an order holding that, upon the death of the 2nd plaintiff, the suit, as a whole, will not abate and that the 1st plaintiff can continue the suit; and the second one, challenging an order passed in I.A.No.4/2022 (about which only we are concerned in this contempt case), allowing an application to call for a record from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam. The challenge insofar as the first or