The withdrawal of a suit, contrary to the interest of the power agent and the terms of the power of attorney, does not necessarily amount to contempt of court under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

(PRAYER: Against the judgment dated 14.10.1997 of the learned Single Judge in Contempt Application No.154 of 1996.)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

This contempt appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.1997 made in Contempt Application No.154 of 1996, whereunder the appellants herein (respondents 3 and 4 in the contempt application), who are practicing advocates were found guilty of contempt under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for having committed a fraud on the Court by false representation and withdrawing the suit without the knowledge of the contempt applicant, one A. Venkatesan, who is the respondent herein, and punished with simple imprisonment for a term of 30 days and 15 days respectively in addition to the fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively; the first respondent in the contempt application, V. Krishnan, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-; the second respondent in the contempt application, one M.S. Dhananjayan, the owner of the property/ seller, who is nonetheless the client of the appellants herein, was discharged in the contempt application

2. For better appreciation of the case, the following facts are stated in brief:

2.1. The contempt applicant, A. Venkatesan is the Power Agent of one V. Krishnan, who is arrayed as the first respondent in the contempt application. The said V. Krishnan, hereinafter referred to as the Principal, entered into a sale agreement with one M.S. Dhananjayan, second respondent in the contempt application, who is the owner of the property, on 18.10.1988 for sale of his property in question.

2.2. On the ground that M.S. Dhananjayan was not honouring the sale agreement dated 18.10.1988, the Principal, V. Krishnan, gave a power of attorney to A. Venkatesan, the respondent herein on 22.8.1994 to file a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 18.10.1988. Accordingly, A. Venkatesan, as a power agent of the Principal filed a suit for specific performance in C.S.No.1269 of 1994 on the file of this Court against M.S. Dhananjayan (second respondent in the contempt application).

2.3. In the suit, C.S.No.1269 of 1994 on the file of this Court, the appellants in the contempt appeal, practicing advocates of this Court filed a Vakalat on behalf of M.S.Dhananjayan, the owner of the property/Seller.

2.4. A memorandum dated 22.12.1995 was entered into between V.Krishnan, who is the Principal/agreement holder/purchaser and M.S.Dhananjayan, the owner of the property/seller and the same was filed in the Court. The memorandum dated 22.12.1995 reads as follows:

"Memo filed by the Plaintiff

The plaintiff declares the suit has been settled out of Court and hence he withdraws the suit as not pressed and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit as not pressed and withdrawn and prays that half court may be refunded in the name of the Counsel.

Dated at Madras this 22nd December, 1995.

sd/- xxxx sd/- V.Krishnan

Counsel for Plaintiff Plaintiff"

2.5. Based on the said memorandum dated 22.12.1995, the suit was dismissed on 22.12.1995 as settled out of Court and the judgment dated 22.12.1995 reads as follows:

"Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has filed a memo stating that the suit claim has been settled out of Court. In view of this Memo, the suit is dismissed as settled out of Court. Issue Certificate to the refund of half of the Court-fee paid on the plaint, and the same may be issued in the name of learned counsel for the plaintiff."

2.6. Thereafter, the power agent, A. Venkatesan, on a specific allegation that he was not informed about the withdrawal of the suit by his Principal and that the Principal/Agreement Holder/Purchaser and the Owner of the Property/Seller, M.S. Dhanjayan as well as the appellants herein colluded and committed a fraud on the Court by false representation for having withdrawn the suit without the knowledge of the contempt applicant, who is the power agent, f