By the Court.—Heard.

2. Respondent Birendra Kumar has filed three writ petitions and in each of the three writ petitions, he had taken three different stands as regards drawl of a loan from a particular financial institution which appear indicated in the order of reference dated 26.3.2012, initiating the contempt proceedings. His lordship finding the contradictory statement, which appeared to His Lordship false, was of the view that it was to scandalize or minimize the authority of the Court. We are not indefinite in holding the opinion that if false statements are made on oath in support of any contention so as to seeking any particular relief from a Court then it is definitely going to scandalize the Court as the very statement could be misleading the judge to a wrong decision. A judge is supposed to pass correct orders and judgments and if he is misled on account of any wrong and incorrect statement of facts then he is bound to be misled and to fall in error and thus the whole Court on the account of foully of a particular deponent may face disrepute of passing wrong orders or an order inconsistent to the consistent views of the Court on similar issues. This could be the