JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, C.J. - Chaudhari Rajendra Singh under the guardianship of Chaudhari Sher Singh applied to this Court for issue of notice to the plaintiff, Mr. Uma Pershad to show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt of the subordinate Court in respect of a notice dated 11th July 1934, sent on behalf of the plaintiff by Dr. M, his advocate. The application was directed against the plaintiff, Mr. Uma Pershad only, but as prima facie it appeared that a contempt had been committed by the service of this notice issued under the signature of the counsel, we ordered that notice should go to the counsel concerned as well. Both are now represented before us.

2. It appears that a civil suit was pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dehradun and had been brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Uma Pershad against Rajendra Singh minor under the guardianship of Chaudhari Sher Singh on the basis of a mortgage-deed executed by the deceased father of the minor defendant in favour of the deceased father of the plaintiff. The claim was contested inter alia on the ground that the mortgage debt was not binding on the minor defendant inasmuch as it was tainted with immorality. In para. 9 of the written statement it was specifically pleaded:

that some unscrupulous money-lenders taking advantage of the dissolute habits of the defendant's father began running him into indebtedness and the said defendant believes that the plaintiff's father also colluded with some of these money-lenders with a similar object and the payment of curlier debts as recited in the deed is fictitious.

3. After issues had been settled, the plaintiff's evidence closed, and the defendant's evidence began, the notice in dispute was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant's guardian. After quoting para. 9 of the written statement in full the notice stated that that statement was defamatory per se of the plaintiff's deceased father and lowered his reputation in the estimation of his fellowmen and caused him harm in various ways and then added:

unless within a week of the receipt of this notice you send an unqualified apology and withdraw the afore quoted statement by putting in an application to that effect in the said Court and also by publishing the said withdrawal and apology in such newspapers as my client requires in order to clear the character and conduct of his late father and unless farther within the same one week you pay to my client a sum of Bs. 10,000 (ton thousand rupees) only as damages, which sum is only a rough figure for the purposes of this notice and by which ho is in no way bound, if litigation becomes necessary in this regard he will take action against you both in civil and criminal Courts as advised, in which event you will further be liable to pay such damages and costs incidental thereto as may be claimed.

4. The question for consideration before us is whether the issuing of this notice amounted to a contempt of the Subordinate Judge of Dehra Dun. Jurisdiction to punish for contempt of subordinate Courts undoubtedly vests in this Court, and has mot been challenged by learned counsel. Apart from there being inherent jurisdiction, such jurisdiction has been expressly conferred upon High Court is by the contempt of Courts Act (12 of 1926), in all cases of contempt other than those which amount to an offence under the Penal Code. There is no suggestion in this case that the action of the opposite party amounted to any offence under the Penal Code. Therefore the only point for consideration is whether this notice amounted to contempt.

5. Now, there can be a large variety of cases coming under the well-recognized heads of contempt in which an offence may be committed. No attempt has therefore ever been made, nor is it possible to lay down any exhaustive catalogue of cases which would amount to contempt, but one of the well recognized heads is "interference with the administration of justice." Undoubtedly it is the right of every defendant to take ever