AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J
I.A. No. 03 of 2022 & I.A. No. 04 of 2022
This appeal is yet to be admitted.
On 20.11.2019 the learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the appellants had used certain derogatory words against the Presiding Officer/s and sought sufficient time to file an appropriate application since the pleadings in the appeal ran to 547 pages. The appellant no.2 who was personally present was granted three weeks time to file his response to such an application if filed.
Thereafter, the record reveals that I.A. No. 01 of 2019 and I.A. No. 02 of 2020 were filed by the respondents pointing out various instances of indiscrimante use of the words “deliberately” and “intentionally” in the appeal to criticize the impugned judgment.
On 11.03.2020 the appellant no.2 in person submitted that he did not desire to file any reply to these applications. As such the applications were directed to be heard on 27.07.2020.
The order dated 25.08.2020 passed by this court records the absence of the appellants although informed. The aforesaid two applications were then taken up for hearing on 12.11.2020.
On 12.11.2020 this court while deciding the said applications noticed that the appellant had used the words “deliberately” and “intentionally” to criticize the impugned judgment. It was seen that the appellants had in fact used such intemperate words and language throughout the appeal. The appellant no.2 who was present personally was asked to explain as to how the act of learned District Judge and this court’s registry were deliberate and intentional it was submitted that the learned District Judge had wrongly come to certain conclusions in his judgment. At this stage the appellant no.2 in person desired to rectify these errors and used appropriate language and words in the appeal and for the said purpose sought to file an amended appeal deleting all the sentences and words in which impute motive and intention upon the learned District Judge and the registry of this court. On the prayer of the appellant no.2 in person the matter was adjourned on 01.04.2021 permitting the appellants to file the amended appeal.
Order dated 05.04.2021 records the presence of the appellants in person and the fact that the order dated 12.11.2020 had yet not been complied with. The order also records that the appellant informed this court that it may pass appropriate orders. In the interest of justice however, this court deemed it appropriate to give him one more opportunity to comply with the order.
On 09.07.2021 the appellants did not appear as he was out of station although he was aware of the date. Keeping in mind the fact that the appellant were appearing in person this court deemed it appropriate to adjourn it by two further months to enable the appellants to comply with the order dated 12.11.2020.
On 18.09.2021 none appeared for the appellants once again. The order dated 12.11.2020 had still not been complied with. It was pleaded by the learned Advocate General for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Sudipto Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that this court is required to strike out the offending parts in the appeal. On hearing them this court was of the view that the matter should be adjourned to enable the respondents to file appropriate applications to strike out the pleadings. Interim application nos. 03 of 2022 and 04 of 2022 have been filed by the private respondent and the State-respondent respectively pointing out the various instances of indiscriminate use of words attributed against the Presiding Officer/s and praying that they be struck of. It is stated that copies of the said applications have been served upon the appellants. On being asked his say, the appellant no.2 in person started making extraneous comments and mentioning that he had approached various constitutional authorities.
Considered I.A. Nos. 03 of 2022 and 04 of 2022. The pleadings in the appeal sought to be struck of by way of the present applications have already been considered by this court earlier. These pleadings have been pointed out in I.A. Nos. 01 of 2019 and I.A. No.02 of 2020 as well. The appellants had chosen not file a reply then. These pleadings are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious as well. It would therefore have the tendency to prejudice and embarrass as well as delay the hearing of this appeal. This court is also of the view that it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.
In the circumstances, the registry is directed to strike out the pleadings as mentioned in the applications as well as in any other part of the pleadings where the words “deliberately” and “intentionally” or any such words have been used to attribute motive against the Presiding Officer/s and the registry of this court and thereafter, place the appeal for appropriate orders on 25.08.2022. The cost incurred by the registry for taking the above steps and for making copies for the parties as well as the court shall be borne by the appellants. It is made clear that the date 25.08.2022 has been agreed upon by the appellant no.2 in person on behalf of the appellants as well as by the learned counsel representing the respondents. The applications are allowed and disposed.