Ajit Singh vs Kundan Singh

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This revision petition has been filed by Ajit Singh (hereinafter described as ''the petitioner'') directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dated 18.8.1993. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

The petitioner alleged that Kundan Singh, Jagir Singh and Harjinder Singh had forcibly sown green Bajra and paddy in the year 1990 in the land measuring 27 Kanals 4 Marlas in his possession. His grievance was that this has been done despite the order passed by the Supreme Court on 1.3.1982. His assertions proceed that iron buckets operating in the well for irrigation had been thrown away by the respondents and the respondents dismantled the operation of the water course in the land referred to above on the eastern side of Khasra No. 906.

The application as such was contested. The learned Subordinate Judge on 5.12.1991 dismissed the application holding that the order which is alleged to have been flouted was passed by the Supreme Court of India and the remedy available to the petitioner would be to approach the said Court for initiating contempt proceedings, if any. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on the above said ground. He further concluded that respondents were not party to the matter pending before the Supreme Court because the said order pertains to one Swaran Singh and not the respondents. With these findings, the appeal, as such, was dismissed.

The petitioner appeared in person and argued, while the respondents were represented by a counsel.

A contempt resulting from disobedience of order of the Court is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemner. In normal circumstances when such a fact is brought to the notice of the Court, then it should be the Court which passed the order or whose order has been flouted or violated to proceed with the matter. In the present case, the order passed was that of the Supreme Court and, therefore, it would be in the fitness of things if the petitioners approach the said Court.

The application, as such was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Subordinate Judge. Since disobedience is alleged to be of an order of the Supreme Court, the learned Subordinate Judge rightly refrained himself from considering such an application. If there was any application so filed, the Court as such could not consider the same. But that is not the subject matter in the present revision. Keeping in view the aforesaid, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Courts below.

No opinion is being expressed the merits because of the reasons that have been given above.

For these reasons, the revision petition fails and is dismissed.